'Bala Sanyasa' Is Legal; No Statutory Or Constitutional Bar Against Minor Becoming Swami : Karnataka High Court

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."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, the amicus 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 ...

'Bala Sanyasa' Is Legal; No Statutory Or Constitutional Bar Against Minor Becoming Swami : Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Bala Sanyasa' Is Legal; No Statutory Or Constitutional Bar Against Minor Becoming Swami : Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers