The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the removal of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt Mahant (custodian) Arjun Dass, holding that the proceedings against him were vitiated by multiple violations of natural justice.

A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar reinstated Dass as Mathadhipati of the Tirupati-based Mutt and directed a fresh inquiry by an independent retired district judge.

It also constituted an administrative committee headed by retired Madhya Pradesh High Court judge Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana to assist in supervising the Mutt’s affairs, preserving records, monitoring litigation and protecting Mutt properties from encroachment or alienation.

Dass was appointed as the Mahant of the Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt in 2000. Associated with the Mutt since 1970, Dass was recognised by the Akhil Bharatiya Sri Panch Digambar Ani Akhada Panchayat as the sole surviving disciple of his guru and was subsequently appointed Mathadhipati under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

Soon after his appointment, disputes arose between Dass and the Endowments Department over control of the Mutt’s secular affairs and properties.

In 2002, Dass approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking transfer of management from government officials. Although the Endowments Department later attempted to cancel his appointment, the High Court set aside that decision in 2006 and directed that the Mutt’s secular affairs be handed over to him. The State government subsequently implemented that direction.

Fresh controversy emerged in 2017 after complaints and newspaper reports alleging irregularities in the management of the Mutt. Several rounds of litigation followed. In June 2023, the Dharmika Parishad framed 16 charges against Dass, suspended him from office and appointed a Fit Person (interim Mahant) to administer the institution.

The charges against Dass included allegations relating to management of Mutt properties, financial irregularities, appointments made in branch Mutts, failure to protect Mutt assets, violation of monastic customs and other acts allegedly amounting to misconduct.

An inquiry committee later found all charges proved. Acting on the report, the Dharmika Parishad removed Dass from office on November 24, 2023. The Andhra Pradesh government confirmed the decision, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the removal order in May 2025.

Dass then approached the Supreme Court challenging the removal.

Before the top court, Dass argued that the 27-page charge memo and 29 supporting documents running into more than 600 pages had never been supplied to him before the inquiry.

He also contended that members of the Dharmika Parishad, which had already resolved to initiate action against him, subsequently sat on the inquiry committee.

Accepting these submissions, the Supreme Court held that the disciplinary process suffered from fundamental procedural defects.

The Court emphasised that a meaningful opportunity of hearing necessarily required supply of the documents relied upon against the person facing charges.

“Supply of relevant documents constitutes the most elementary and fundamental requirement of procedural fairness as no person can be expected to answer a case which is not fully disclosed to him,” the Bench said.

The Court also rejected the authorities’ claim that documents had been validly served by affixing them at the Mutt premises.

“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. To hold otherwise would be to hold that the Authorities may take over a person’s place of residence and then validly serve him with a legal notice by pasting it on the door of the residence it has taken over.” it noted.

The Bench also faulted the High Court for not setting aside the proceedings once these defects were brought to its notice.

“The High Court, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, ought to have set aside the Impugned Order being violative of principles of natural justice and should have advised the competent authority to take recourse in accordance with law.” it said.

Having found the inquiry process fundamentally flawed, the Court set aside the removal order, the government’s confirmation order, the inquiry report and the High Court judgment affirming them.

However, instead of remanding the matter to the Dharmika Parishad, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed a fresh inquiry by retired District Judge Boddepalli Rama Rao.

The inquiry officer has been directed to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice, supply all relied-upon documents to Dass and complete the inquiry exercise within one year.

An administrative committee led by retired High Court judge, Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana, is to oversee the Mutt's management and safeguard its properties in the meanwhile.

Pending completion of the fresh inquiry, Dass will continue as Mathadhipati and will be permitted to participate in the religious and spiritual activities of the Mutt.

The Court said that both the institution and its devotees were entitled to a process that inspires confidence.

“Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, as an institution of immense religious, cultural and historical significance, and its devotees, are entitled to a resolution of the present controversy through a process, that is and appears to be, free, fair and unbiased," it said.

Dass was represented by Senior Advocate Puneet Jain along with advocates Christi Jain, Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Aditya Jain, Siddharth Jain and Yogit Kamat.

The State and other respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and DN Goburdhun, along with advocates Guntur Pramod Kumar, Prerna Singh, Mihir Joshi, Sohail Ahmed, Vanshika Singh, Rakshita Rana, Aakash Nandolia, G Sateesh, Ch Carveswar Leela, Akash Kakade, Somanatha Padhan, Nidhi, Suvesh Kumar, Divyanshi, Vikas Kumar, Bhupendra Arya, Bhuvnesh, Praharsh Chaudhary, Rohan Garg, Praveen Swarup, Padmesh Mishra, EVS Venugopal, MA Chinnasamy, C Raghavendren, C Rubavathi and Ch Leela Sarveswar.

[Read Judgement]