No Legal Bar In Minor Becoming A Swami, Amicus Tells Karnataka High Court; Judgment Reserved On Legality Of 'Bala Sanyasa'

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum heard the parties for over four hours and reserved their order.

Advocate D R Ravishankar appeared for the petitioner P. Lathavya Acharya and Ors. submitted that

"A minor cannot be forced with doing what is not suiting his age. Anointing a minor as chief pontiff amounts to imposing material abandonment on the child, which is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In substance, there cannot be a sannyasa because that will require him (minor) to include material abandonment."

Relying on Article 39 (e) (f) of the Constitution of India and Article 21, it was contended that "Article 21 and Article 39 have to be read conjointly and thus it becomes an integral part of right to life with dignity. A child cannot be forced to adopt or abandon moral and material abandonment."

The petition states that "In the present case, the minor is imposed with Sanyasa while the authorities concerned have remained dormant and inactive permitting the rights of the minor child being violated. The minor / Respondent No.7 is also not from an affluent background and perhaps the economic condition has been misused in even taking the Child's Parents into confidence in undertaking this exercise and needless to state that under the scheme of the extant laws relating to the rights of a guardian, even a guardian, whether legal or natural is not empowered to give any consent for material abandonment or imposition of Sanyasa on the minor child."

Ravishankar concluded by saying:

"This practice imposing sanyasa on a minor is anti-constitutional and it is an obligation on part of the state government as enshrined under Article 39, to protect children from being forced to take up sanyasa."

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 (Sode Vadiraja Mutt and Sri Vishwavallabha Tirtha swami of Sri Sode Vadiraj Mutt ) submitted that "The previous head (pontiff) died in 2018, the office was kept vacant they did not find a suitable person. Eventually, when they located this boy after looking at his interest in Dharmashastra and all associated activities with spiritual science, he was chosen by Respondent 6, as a fit candidate."

Further, it was said that "This practise of Bala-sanyasa has been there since 800 odd years. All the Astha mathas from their inception have had bala-sanyasi as peethadhipathis, who have efficiently and successfully managed and administered Sri Krishna Matha and their respective Astha Matha's."

Moreover, it was said for 18 months there was no quarrel as regards the administration of the affairs of the mutt. Only these four persons have come before the court, questioning the appointment of resp 7. There is no public interest involved in the present case, apart from these petitioners no followers of the Shirur mutt have come forward with any complaint on the anointment.

It was claimed that "Prior to the present petition, the same petitioners have filed a criminal complaint against the respondent 6 alleging misappropriation of funds, the trial court has rejected the complaint, having failed there the petitioners have come before this court. This petition is to settle scores with resp 6."

The counsel also submitted that:

"Your (petitioners) right to profess religion is not affected by my appointment of resp 7. Moreover, if somebody wants to become celibate at the age of 16 years, law does not prevent it."

In regards to the submission that fundamental rights of the minor will be affected the counsel for respondent said "The appointment of Peedathipathi of Shiroor Mutt is also well within the policies formulated by the Central government from time to time including the National Policy for Children, 2013."

It added,

"As Peedathipathi of the Shri Shiroor Matha, he is not denied or deprived of any of his rights flowing to him under the above-mentioned laws or policies. The Peedathipathi pursues his education by learning the Vedas, Upanishads, philosophy of Shriman Madhwacharya to do which he had always shown keen interest, profound love and desire. He is not abused or forced to do any avocations unsuited to his age or strength nor is he forced to carry out the duties attached to the post of a Peedathipathi owing to any economic necessity or need. In Shri Shiroor Matha, he has all the opportunity and facilities for wholesome development of his person and personality in a conducive environment,"

It was also said that "Even the Constitution of India mandates state governments to provide every child education up to 14 years. The mutts impart education and they (pontiff) are taught everything associated with Hindu religion and philosophy."

Reference was also made to the fact that "Shriman Madhwaharya himself was a bal sanyasi and was initiated into sanyasa at the age of 11 years by his teacher Shri Achyuta Prekshacharya."

Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate S S Naganand submitted that "There is no statutory, much less constitutional, bar on a person of less than 18 years age being initiated into Sanyasa. It is impossible, and also inappropriate, to generalise the issue and each case will have to be seen in the factual context involved."

Further, he said "In the event of the head of one of the Mutts passing away without nominating his successor, the head of the paired Mutt has the authority to appoint such successor. This custom has found judicial recognition by way of a judgement of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Bheemanakatte Mutt, AIR 1917 Mad 809. A seven-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1954 AIR 282 (Shiur Muttcase) has declared that the followers of Madhwacharya constitute a religious denomination and the followers of Shiroor Mutt form a section of the religious denomination."

As regards Bal-sanyasa, he submitted, "The age of majority is reckoned as 18 years only for purposes of entering into a binding contract and undertaking responsibilities as majors. This is the purpose for which the Majority Act, 1875 was enacted. While prescribing the age of majority as 18 years for this purpose, a specific exception is carved out in section 2 which says that nothing contained in the Act shall affect the religion or religious rites and usages of any class of citizens of India..."

"Therefore, for purposes of religion or religious rites and usages that have the protection of the Constitution as also international treaties, a person cannot be presumed to be a minor only for the reason that he is less than 18 years of age. When the question arises whether any of the rights of such a person is violated, it has to be examined in the totality of circumstances and it may not be appropriate to proceed on the presumption that he is a minor for all purposes."

Further, it was said "Among the followers of Madhwacharya in the Udupi region, particularly the Ashta Mathas, the practice is to give Sanyasa Deeksha only to a Brahmachari (unmarried,celibate). There is, however, no inflexible rule that a person has to be of a certain age. It is not necessary that only boys of a tender age are to be initiated into Sanyasa."

Also, it was said, "If the person so initiated happens to be of less than 18 years of age, it is only coincidental. There is no rule of Bala Sanyasa. There is no compulsion or force involved in the matter of Sanyasa. Unless the person concerned and his parents consent wholeheartedly, Sanyasa Deeksha will not be given. There is nothing like the imposition of Sanyasa on a child."

The state government counsel also opposed the petition on grounds of maintainability. It was said "A declaration has been sought using public law remedy, while private law remedy has to be invoked. The question of declaration seeking that respondent 6 has no authority to appoint bala-sanyasi, that under Article 226 is not permissible.

Case Title: P Lathavya Acharya And State Of Karnataka

Case No: WP 8926/2021