Karnataka HC upholds boy’s anointment as Shiroor mutt seer

BENGALURU: There is no legal or constitutional bar on giving sanyasa deeksha to persons below the age of 18 years, the Karnataka high court observed on Wednesday, dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the anointing of a 16-year-old boy as pontiff of Shiroor Mutt.
A division bench headed by acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said children of tender age are made monks in other religions like Buddhism, and there is no statutory bar — much less a constitutional bar — on persons below the age of 18 years being initiated into sanyasa.
Shiroor Mutt is one of the eight mutts in Udupi.
PL Acharya and others, who claimed to be mutt devotees, had sought for action under the provisions of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act against the anointment of 16-year-old Aniruddha Saralathaya, now christened Vedavardhana Teertha, as peetadhipathi of the Shiroor Mutt.
The bench said the religious texts quoted by amicus curiae, senior advocate SS Naganand, make it clear that religion permits a person to become a sanyasi before he attains the age of 18 years and added that Sode Mutt, which, as Dwandwa mutt (pairing mutt of Shiroor Mutt), had chosen and anointed Aniruddha, was well within its right as it was a practice being followed for the past 800 years and was indicative of the philosophy of Sri Madhwacharya.
Citing the judgment of Madhya Pradesh high court in Adarsh Seva Marg Trust case pertaining to rituals of Jainism, the bench noted that in the said case it has been clearly held that high courts are not theological wizards and they, as constitutional courts, cannot transgress by interfering with essential religious practices, which are certainly not opposed to public order, morality, public health or any fundamental right. Observing that courts cannot be expected to overwrite religious texts and so long as no violation has been shown and interfere with religious practices, the bench said the petitioners had failed to point out any violation of statutory or constitutional provisions. The petitioners asserted that the boy is not capable of exercising free consent and is not competent to contract in terms of section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Sode Mutt, which had chosen the successor to Shiroor Mutt as a Dwandwa mutt, claimed Acharya is a blood brother of the erstwhile peetadhipathi of Shiroor Mutt and other petitioners are his close relatives and they had a vested interest in the matter. The court was told that apart from filing PIL, the petitioners had initiated civil and criminal proceedings in the matter.