The Supreme Court has set aside the removal of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt Mathadhipathi Arjun Dass. The Court held that the Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad violated fundamental principles of natural justice during the proceedings.
Justice J.K. Maheshwari delivered the judgment in Arjun Dass v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
The Court also quashed the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment that upheld Arjun Dass’s removal. It directed a fresh inquiry by an independent one-man committee headed by retired District Judge Boddepalli Rama Rao.
Background of the Dispute
Arjun Dass has been associated with the Mutt since 1970.
He served as Pujari in 1975, Adhikari in 1985, and Interim Mahant in 1990. Later, the Akhil Bharatiya Sri Panch Digambar Ani Akhada, Nasik, recognised him as the permanent Mahant.
The Endowments Department formally recognised his appointment on July 6, 2000 under Section 53(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
The dispute arose from long-standing litigation concerning the administration and secular affairs of the Mutt.
In 2023, the Dharmika Parishad initiated action against Arjun Dass. On June 8, 2023, it framed 16 charges against him, suspended him from office, and appointed a Fit Person to administer the Mutt.
Authorities also took possession of the Mutt office and the Mahant’s residence.
Charges Against Arjun Dass
A three-member committee later conducted an inquiry and found all 16 charges proved.
The allegations included:
• Attempted alienation of Mutt property
• Acquisition of immovable property in his personal name
• Misappropriation of Mutt funds
• Violations of monastic norms
• Appointment of relatives in branch Mutts
• Failure to protect Mutt properties
• Administrative and litigation-related lapses
Based on these findings, the Dharmika Parishad removed him from office under Section 51(2) of the 1987 Act.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Puneet Jain appeared for Arjun Dass.
He argued that authorities never properly supplied the 27-page charge memo and the 29 supporting documents, which ran into more than 600 pages.
He also challenged service by affixation. According to him, authorities had already taken possession of the Mutt premises and residence, making such service ineffective.
Jain further argued that the inquiry committee lacked impartiality because members of the same Dharmika Parishad that initiated proceedings later conducted the inquiry.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for the respondents.
He argued that authorities served the documents through affixation, email, and court proceedings. He contended that Arjun Dass had responded to the allegations in detail and therefore possessed the relevant material.
The respondents also maintained that subsequent hearings cured any procedural defects.
Court Finds Violation of Natural Justice
The Supreme Court held that removal of a Mathadhipati affects important civil rights and therefore requires strict adherence to principles of natural justice.
Relying on earlier judgments, the Court reiterated that a meaningful opportunity to defend oneself necessarily requires access to all documents relied upon in the proceedings.
The Bench held that Section 51(2) of the 1987 Act requires authorities to provide the allegations, supporting material, and all relied-upon documents.
Without those materials, an effective defence becomes impossible.
Court Rejects State’s Service Claim
The Court rejected the State’s argument that it had validly served the charge memo.
It noted that authorities had already taken possession of the premises where they claimed to have affixed the documents.
The Court remarked:
“To contend that service of the charge memo was completed by affixation on the door of the residence that is not in the possession of the Appellant is a legal absurdity.”
The Bench also noted that Arjun Dass repeatedly requested documents and additional time through communications dated July 17, July 24, and July 31, 2023.
Authorities ignored those requests and proceeded ex parte.
According to the Court, this reflected a deliberate disregard for natural justice.
Findings on Bias
The Court also examined allegations of bias.
It observed that the Dharmika Parishad had first resolved to initiate proceedings and suspend Arjun Dass.
Later, the same body constituted the inquiry committee from among its own members.
The Bench held that an authority cannot act as investigator, prosecutor, and adjudicator in the same matter.
The Court found that the process created a reasonable apprehension of bias and undermined the fairness of the inquiry.
High Court Also Erred, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court found fault with the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s approach.
The Bench held that once a foundational defect in the inquiry process became apparent, the High Court should have set aside the proceedings.
Instead, it examined the merits of the charges despite serious procedural irregularities.
The Court held that this approach was legally unsustainable.
Article 142 Invoked for Fresh Inquiry
Ordinarily, the matter would have returned to the Dharmika Parishad for a fresh inquiry.
However, the Supreme Court declined to adopt that course.
The Court cited concerns regarding structural bias, procedural deficiencies, the pending challenge to Section 152 of the 1987 Act, and delays in reconstituting the Dharmika Parishad.
To ensure fairness, the Bench invoked Article 142 of the Constitution.
It appointed retired District Judge Boddepalli Rama Rao as a one-man independent inquiry committee.
The State and Endowments Department must supply all documents within two weeks.
Arjun Dass will receive at least four weeks to file his defence.
The committee must complete the inquiry and submit its report within one year.
Relief Granted by the Court
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside:
• The Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment dated May 9, 2025
• The Dharmika Parishad’s removal order dated November 24, 2023
• Government Order Ms. No. 581 dated December 8, 2023
• The consequential order dated January 19, 2024
• The inquiry report dated August 1, 2023
The Court also restored Arjun Dass as Mathadhipati pending the fresh inquiry.
Administrative Committee Constituted
To protect the Mutt’s interests during the inquiry, the Court constituted an Administrative Committee under Article 142.
Former High Court judge Justice (Retd.) Duppala Venkata Ramana will head the committee.
Other members include Swami Madhav Prapanna Charya, retired IPS officer Manish Kapooria, Senior Advocate Y.V. Raviprasad, Chartered Accountant Manish Taskar, and a nominee of the Endowments Department.
The committee will supervise administration, preserve records, monitor litigation, prepare an inventory of Mutt properties, and prevent alienation of assets.
However, it will not interfere with Arjun Dass’s religious and spiritual functions.
Court Clarifies Limited Scope
The Supreme Court clarified that these directions apply only to the unique facts of the case.
The Bench stated that the arrangement should not operate as a precedent in other matters.
Until the fresh inquiry concludes, Arjun Dass will continue as Mathadhipati and participate in all religious and spiritual affairs of the Mutt.
