Ambaji Temple Is Public Property, Can't Curtail Pilgrims' Rights: Gujarat High Court Rejects Royal Family's Claim To Perform Special Rituals

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the claim of heirs of the erstwhile Danta royal family for "special privileges" to perform rituals at Ambaji Temple on the eight day of Navratri and in a certain way, thereby "curtailing" right of the pilgrims to offer prayers which it said cannot be allowed as the temple was a public religious institution. 

For context, there were multiple proceedings with respect to the temple, including a plea filed by the appellant (after execution of merger between the then Ruler of Danta State and Government of India in 1948) before the Bombay High Court in 1953 against any coercive action and to restrain authorities from disturbing the possession of private properties of the then Maharana of Danta Prithvirajsinh.

This plea was allowed by the Bombay High Court on 23.03.1954 granting a stay in favour of the appellant. Challenging this order, the Union of India moved the Supreme Court which reversed the findings of the Bombay High court in its order dated 03.12.1957. 

Referring to the Supreme Court order, Justice Hemant M Prachchhak in his order noted:

"That the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1957 has by constitutional judgment held that the petitioner has no right over the temple or property of the temple, once the property is bequeathed to the deity then it is opportunity of that deity and appellant cannot claim right over the temple or its property as it is public property. In fact earlier also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the issue relating to the ownership and hereditary rights. After the merger agreement signed by predecessor / erstwhile Ruler of Danta State; whether any right or privilege survive or not and till date no right or any claim was crystallized in the Court of law. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for challenging the merger agreement, there was/is separate machinery provide under Article 363 way back in 1957 by delivering the judgment by the Constitutional Bench..."

The court further observed that the Arasuri Ambaji temple is one of the Shakti Peetha's attracting crores of pilgrims from across India for centuries. Applying the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. State Of Kerala (2021) regarding the Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple, where it was held that worship is open to the public as of right and the endowment is for a public religious purpose, the high court said:

"Consequently, the claim of private ownership or exclusive hereditary rights cannot be sustained. Therefore, under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Arasuri Ambaji temple is a public religious institution and the deity is juristic person owning endowed property".

The dispute pertained to the registration of the temple and its property and privileges to the heir of the erstwhile Maharana Prithvirajsinh, over their to claim to offer puja on the 8th day of Navratri and to perform the Havan in the temple and to wave the Chamar before the Goddess. The appellant claimed that he has the right to see that while he performed the puja and rendered service to the Goddess, pilgrims are shut-out or excluded from the temple premises. 

There were two matters before the high court. The legal heir had filed an appeal challenged the order of trial court which had upheld the order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner in Inquiry No. 796 of 1961 to register the temple as public religious trust. However the heir was granted relief regarding the special privileges which were granted to the heir.

The Joint Charity Commissioner/District Court declared that Prithvirajsinh has right to offer puja on 8th day of Navratri and to perform the Havan and to wave the Chamar before the Goddess. Further, the appellant has a right to see that while performing the puja and rendering services to the Goddess, pilgrims are shut-out or excluded from the temple premises. Against this trustees of the temple had filed a cross objection to the heir's appeal

After considering the submissions and precedents the high court said:

"In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, now the appellant cannot claim an ownership or any right over the property which belongs to the deity and even by virtue of amendment, he cannot claim for any privilege of performing puja on a particular day in a way as he claiming and thereby curtail right of the pilgrims to perform puja and to offer their prayer where more than lacs of people visiting during the period of Asho Maas Navratri and on 8th day of Asho Maas Navratri, the huge pilgrims visiting the temple of holly shrine Arasuri Ambaji temple and in midst of huge crowd no privileges can be granted in favour of the appellant. Therefore, privileges which is granted by the Deputy Charity Commissioner and confirmed by the Charity Commissioner and further confirmed by the learned District Judge, is not just and proper and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside". 

The court further held that it was "crystal clear" that the Arasuri Ambaji Temple is a public temple and, therefore, the order of registering the trust under the Gujarat (Bombay) Public Trust Act is hereby upheld, thus dismissing the appeal.

"In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bala Shankar Maha Shanker Bhattjee(supra), no privileges is required to be considered in favour of the erstwhile Ruler of the appellant and the order of granting privileges deserves to be quashed and set aside and the cross objection deserves to be allowed," the court added.

The court thus dismissed the heir's appeal and allowed the cross objection.

Case title: MAHARANASHRI MAHIPENDRASINHJI PARMAR HEIR OF PRUTHVIRAJSINH (DECEASED THRU' LEGAL HEIRS) & ORS. v/s  ADMINISTRATOR SHREE AMBAJI MATA DEVSTHAN TRUST AMBAJI & ORS.

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2293 of 2009 and R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 177 of 2011 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2293 of 2009

Click Here To Read/Download Order