The High Court of Telangana has reaffirmed that the right to conduct long-standing religious festivals on privately owned land is protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, even when the state asserts administrative control through pending notifications under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. This judgment clarifies that procedural assertions by revenue authorities cannot override established customary religious practices.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Padi Rama Krishna Reddy and Padi Udayanandhan Reddy, are absolute owners and possessors of 4 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 12941A, Veenavanka Village, Karimnagar District. Their families have conducted the Sammakka Saralamma Jathara on this land for over 50 years as a hereditary religious tradition. The Respondents, representing the Endowments Department, issued administrative orders directing the constitution of a Renovation/Festival Committee to oversee the 2026 Jathara, effectively seeking to supplant the petitioners’ traditional management.
Procedural History
- 2022: The Endowments Department issued G.O.Rt. No. 38, notifying a Renovation Committee for the Jathara.
- 2022: Petitioners filed W.P. Nos. 6273 and 6282 of 2022 challenging the G.O. The Court granted an interim order on 04.02.2022, suspending the G.O. and permitting petitioners to conduct the Jathara with only supervisory presence by Endowments officials.
- 2022: In W.P. No. 6864 of 2022, petitioners challenged the notification under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The Court suspended the Section 43 notification on 08.02.2022 via I.A. No. 2 of 2022.
- January 2026: Respondent No. 2 issued Rc. No. F5/61612026-2 directing Respondent No. 3 to conduct the 2026 Jathara in coordination with the District Collector and other authorities, without referencing the petitioners’ right to manage it.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus declaring the 2026 administrative orders illegal and unconstitutional, and an interim injunction restraining the state from interfering with their right to conduct the Jathara in accordance with longstanding customs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution permit state authorities to unilaterally assume control over the conduct of a religious festival on privately owned land, where the petitioners have exercised uninterrupted custodianship for over five decades, and where prior judicial orders have explicitly recognized their right to manage the event.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned Senior Counsel argued that the petitioners’ right to manage the Jathara is protected under Article 26(b), which guarantees the right to manage religious affairs. They relied on the Court’s own 2022 interim orders, which explicitly permitted the petitioners to conduct the Jathara with only supervisory oversight by Endowments officials. The 2026 orders, they contended, directly contradicted these binding interim directions and amounted to arbitrary executive overreach. They cited S.R. Bommai v. Union of India to emphasize that religious practices rooted in tradition are constitutionally protected even if not codified.
For the Respondent
The Government Pleader did not dispute the existence or validity of the 2022 interim orders. However, they argued that the matter was premature since the Section 43 notification under the Endowments Act remained pending, and that the state’s involvement was merely for public safety and coordination. They claimed no formal committee had been constituted and that the 2026 order was merely a directive for coordination, not an assumption of control.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the continuity of the petitioners’ custodianship and the binding nature of its own prior interim orders. It noted that the 2022 order explicitly recognized the petitioners’ 46-year tradition and directed that Endowments officials should only supervise without interference. The Court held that the 2026 order, by directing the Assistant Commissioner to conduct the Jathara in coordination with the District Collector and other authorities, effectively displaced the petitioners’ constitutional right to manage their own religious affairs.
"Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been conducting Jathara for the last more than 46 years, which fact has not been denied by both the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel, the ends of justice would be met if the impugned G.O. is suspended and the petitioners are permitted to conduct Jathara... without any interference."
The Court emphasized that the state’s administrative interest in public order cannot override the fundamental right to manage religious affairs on private property, especially where the state itself had previously affirmed the legitimacy of the petitioners’ role. The Court rejected the argument that the 2026 order was merely procedural, noting that its language - "take necessary action to conduct" - implied operational control, not mere coordination. The Court concluded that the state’s action violated the principle of stare decisis and the sanctity of its own prior judicial directives.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that Article 26 protects the petitioners’ right to conduct the Sammakka Saralamma Jathara on their private land, and that the 2026 administrative orders violated both the Constitution and the Court’s prior interim directions. The Court issued an interim direction permitting the petitioners and their family members to conduct the 2026 Jathara, with Endowments officials permitted only to supervise without interference.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Religious Custodianship Trumps Administrative Control
- Practitioners must argue that long-standing, hereditary management of religious festivals on private land constitutes a protected religious practice under Article 26.
- Administrative orders that seek to replace traditional custodians with state-appointed committees must be challenged as violations of constitutional autonomy.
- Prior judicial orders recognizing such custodianship create binding precedent that cannot be circumvented by subsequent executive directives.
Supervision ≠ Control: The Line Must Be Drawn
- The state may supervise for public safety, but cannot assume operational control over religious rites.
- Language in administrative orders such as "take necessary action to conduct" or "constitute a committee" will be interpreted as usurpation of religious rights if it displaces traditional custodians.
- Legal notices should explicitly distinguish between "oversight" and "administration" to avoid constitutional infirmity.
Judicial Precedent as a Shield Against Executive Overreach
- Courts will enforce their own interim orders as binding on administrative agencies.
- Petitioners in pending Section 43 cases may use interim orders as a shield against new administrative actions.
- Any attempt to bypass judicial directions through procedural reclassification (e.g., "coordination" instead of "control") will be struck down as colorable exercise of power.
