- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- 'Bala Sanyasa' Is Legal; No...
'Bala Sanyasa' Is Legal; No Statutory Or Constitutional Bar Against Minor Becoming Swami : Karnataka High Court
Mustafa Plumber
29 Sept 2021 10:58 AM IST
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday upheld the legality of "bala sanyasa" and held that there was no legal bar against a minor becoming a swami.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum delivered the judgment while dismissing a writ petition filed questioning the legality of appointing 16-year-old Aniruddha Saralathaya (now named...
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday upheld the legality of "bala sanyasa" and held that there was no legal bar against a minor becoming a swami.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum delivered the judgment while dismissing a writ petition filed questioning the legality of appointing 16-year-old Aniruddha Saralathaya (now named as Vedavardhana Tirtha) as the Peetadhipathi of the Shiroor Mutt in Udupi.
The bench read out the following extract from the judgment during today's pronouncement.
"In other religions like Buddhism, children of tender age have become monks. There is no rule as to on which age sanyasa/bhiksha can be given. Also there is no statutory there no statutory much less constitutional bar on a person less than 18 years being initiated into sanyasa.
And religious text which have been quoted in the arguments of the amicus curiae makes it very clear that religion permits a person to become a sanyasi before he attain the age of 18 years and there is no such bar and as per the Respondent 6 was certainly empowered keeping in view the essential religious practices to appoint respondent 7 as the peetatdipati of the Shirur mutt.
In the concerned opinion, the courts are certainly not meant to write religious texts. However, they are under an obligation to follow the religious texts in the matters dealing with religious disputes and follow all practices which are prevalent in the religion, so long as they do not violate constitutional rights of individuals".
In the present case Shirur Mutt is a religious denomination and as per the essential religious practices, respondent 7 has become a sanyasi and he has been appointed as peetadhipati of the Shirur mutt. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that the essential religious practices of the mutt is violative of constitutional rights".
Dismissing the petition, the Court said :
"The petition has not been able to make out violation of any statutory provisions or any violation of constitutional rights guaranteed to respondent 7. The essential religious practice has been going on since last 800 years and the appointment of pontiff is a practice which is existence for the last 800 years indicative of the philosophy and teaching of Sri Madhvacharya.
The division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Aaarsh Marg Seva Trust and others vs state of Madhya Pradesh, WP No 8310/2019 has dealt with essential religious practices and in para 72 has held that "This is court is not a theological wizard and shall be transgressing its role as a constitutionist authority by interfeeing with the essential religious practices. Which is certainly not opposed to public order, morality, health or any other fundamental right.
In the light of aforesaid judgement, in which the divisions bench has declined to interfere in essential religious practices which was continuing since time immemorial, the question of interference of this court in the essential religious practice of Shri Shirrrur Mutt which is continuing for the last 800 years does not arise. Accordingly the petition is dismissed"
Full copy of the judgment is awaited.
The petitioner P. Lathavya Acharya, represented by Advocate D R Ravishankar, had argued that forcing a minor to do "material abandonment" was in violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
"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", the petitioner had argued. The petitioner argued that "bala sanyasa" was akin to child labour.
To resolve the issue, the Court had appointed Senior Advocate S S Naganand as an amicus curiae, who opined that there was no legal bar against a minor becoming a swami.
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.
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."
The counsel for the respondents 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."
(Report to be updated after receiving full copy of the judgment)
Case Title: P Lathavya Acharya And State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 8926/2021
