Court dismisses Maharana’s appeal challenging temple trust registration, rules temple is public property; hereditary rights to perform special puja struck down
In a landmark judgment delivered on December 24, 2025, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Maharana Mahipendrasinhji Parmar, heir of the erstwhile Ruler of Danta State, challenging the registration of the Arasuri Ambaji Mata Devsthan as a public religious trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Court upheld the findings of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Charity Commissioner, and the District Judge that the Arasuri Ambaji Mata Temple is a public temple and its properties are public trust properties, not private property of the Maharana or his predecessors.
The Maharana had claimed ownership and exclusive hereditary rights over the temple and its properties, seeking to invalidate the public trust registration and assert his rights as the original owner and custodian. He asserted his privilege to perform the special puja on the 8th day of Navratri and conduct rituals including Havan and waving the Chamar before the Goddess, with authority to exclude pilgrims during these rites.
The Court thoroughly examined the pre- and post-independence history, including the 1948 merger agreement between the Maharana of Danta and the Government of India, which distinguished between private properties of the erstwhile ruler and State properties. The Court noted that while the Maharana and his predecessors managed the temple as rulers, the Supreme Court had earlier ruled in 1957 that the temple and its properties are public properties, rejecting the claim of private ownership. The High Court emphasized that the rights of the Maharana are limited to certain hereditary privileges, which do not extend to ownership or exclusive control.
The Court also scrutinized voluminous documentary evidence, including government correspondences, historical records, and prior court orders, which consistently recognized the temple as a public religious institution. The Court relied on authoritative Supreme Court precedents distinguishing public trusts from private trusts, affirming that the beneficiaries of a public religious endowment are the public at large or a class thereof, not specific individuals.
Significantly, the Court quashed the lower authorities’ orders granting the Maharana the right to perform puja and exclude pilgrims during Navratri, holding that such privileges are illegal and unjust as they infringe on the fundamental rights of the public to worship the deity. The Court ruled that allowing exclusive hereditary rights over a public temple would result in discrimination and violation of constitutional rights under Articles 25 and 26.
The judgment also noted the constitutional developments, including the 26th Amendment abolishing privy purses and privileges of former rulers, which further negates any claim of exclusive rights by the Maharana. The Court observed that the temple deity is a juristic person owning the endowed properties, with the temple management constitutionally valid under state administration, following Supreme Court rulings in similar cases such as the Padmanabhaswamy and Marthanda Varma cases.
The Court dismissed the Maharana’s appeal and allowed the cross-objection filed by the temple trust, thereby upholding the registration of the temple as a public trust and annulling the grant of any exclusive hereditary privileges to the Maharana. The Court directed the registry to send back the records to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this judgment.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that religious endowments dedicated to the public belong to the public and are to be managed as public trusts, with no individual entitled to exclusive ownership or control, even if they were former rulers. It also underscores the constitutional protection of the right to worship freely without unlawful exclusion by any individual.
Bottom Line:
Arasuri Ambaji Temple is held to be a public temple and not private property of the erstwhile Ruler of Danta State; registration of the temple as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act is upheld; the erstwhile Ruler’s claim of ownership and special hereditary privileges to offer puja on the 8th day of Navratri and perform Havan is rejected; no exclusion of pilgrims from temple premises during such puja is permissible.
Statutory provision(s): Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Sections 18, 19, 72), Constitution of India Articles 25, 26, 363, 366, 372, 363A
