Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Order Directing State To Intervene In Ramakrishna Vedanta Math After Allegations Of Relics Being Neglected

The Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri has set aside an order directing the District Magistrate, Darjeeling to convene a meeting and consider measures for preservation and maintenance of relics and articles kept at a Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, after a petitioner alleged that sacred relics associated with Swami Abhedananda were being kept in a neglected and unsafe condition.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Roy and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had failed to show infringement of any fundamental, legal or private right. The Court observed that the allegations, at their highest, concerned the administration of a Trust and could be pursued before an appropriate civil forum.

The writ petitioner described himself as a follower of Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission and stated that he frequently visited Maths in and around Siliguri, Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling.

He alleged that the Ramakrishna Vedanta Ashrama in Darjeeling housed sacred relics and other important articles used by Swami Abhedananda, a direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna. According to the petitioner, these articles and relics were lying in an "absolute negligent and unprofessional manner" and could be destroyed if proper care was not taken.

The petitioner further alleged that the Ashram was often kept under lock and key and that the building had become dilapidated due to lack of maintenance over several years. He claimed that the building could collapse at any time and also alleged that no daily worship was being conducted at the Ashram.

Based on these allegations, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to the State authorities to act upon his representations. Among other reliefs, he sought that the charge of the Ashram be handed over to another similarly situated religious organisation and also sought an order restraining the removal of any articles or relics from the Ashram.

During the proceedings, the Single Bench had directed the District Magistrate to visit the Math and prepare an inventory of the articles.

The petitioner's counsel submitted before the Division Bench that repeated representations had been made to the District Magistrate. Pursuant to the Court's directions, an inventory was prepared on November 30, 2024, recording the articles found at the Ashram. The appellant had participated in the inventory process.

The District Magistrate subsequently convened a meeting in July 2026, in which the appellant was represented. The Single Bench eventually disposed of the writ petition on July 10, 2026, directing the District Magistrate to convene a meeting with representatives of the concerned Math, the Ramakrishna Mission headquarters at Belur and the writ petitioner and to consider appropriate measures for preservation and maintenance of the relics, articles and Math building.

Appearing for the Ashram, Advocate Kallol Basu argued that the writ petition itself was not maintainable.

He submitted that "No right of the writ petitioner has been infringed" so as to give rise to a cause of action in writ jurisdiction. He argued that the case pleaded by the petitioner essentially questioned the administration of the Trust, including maintenance of the Ashram and its valuable articles.

It was further submitted that the entire affair of the Ashram was governed by a Trust which continued to function and had trustees and a Board of Trustees. Therefore, the State administration could not "step into the administration of the Trust."

The petitioner opposed the challenge to maintainability and relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan.

He argued that, as a follower of the Ramakrishna Mission, he had the right to ensure that the affairs of the Ashram were properly conducted and that the valuable articles, which possessed "tremendous historical, religious and philosophical value", were protected.

The Division Bench accepted the Ashram's objection to maintainability.

The Court noted that the petitioner had instituted the writ petition as a follower of a particular religious philosophy and follower of the Ramakrishna Mission for protection and maintenance of the Ashram's assets. However, it was undisputed that the Ashram was run and administered under a Trust.

The Bench held: "there is no case made out as to how a fundamental right or a legal right of the petitioner is infringed."

It further observed that "no case is made out that any private right of the petitioner has been infringed."

According to the Court, the allegations could, at the highest, be levelled against the administration of the Trust, for which the petitioner would have appropriate remedies "in the civil domain and not in the constitutional domain."

The Bench added that even if the allegations were accepted for the sake of argument, "the same will be purely civil in nature for which no writ petition shall lie."

The Court further held that the petitioner had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstance warranting State intervention in the management of the Ashram.

"No exceptional case has been made out in the writ petition as to why the State administration should intervene in the affair of a Trust for the management of the Ashram," the Bench observed.

The Division Bench also rejected the argument that the Ashram, by participating in the meeting convened by the District Magistrate, had accepted the maintainability of the writ petition.

It held that mere participation in the meeting pursuant to an interlocutory order "would not operate as estoppel, waiver or acquiescence" and would not prevent the appellant from questioning maintainability at the appellate stage.

The Court also distinguished the Supreme Court's judgment in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, relied upon by the petitioner.

The Bench noted that the Supreme Court judgment arose from a public interest litigation and did not concern infringement of a private right.

The High Court observed that "no right of the writ petitioner has been infringed" and that neither the pleadings disclosed infringement of any religious right nor was a roving enquiry contemplated.

Accordingly, the Court held that the ratio of Guruvayoor Devaswom did not apply to the facts of the present case.

The Bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on whether the petitioner otherwise had a right to challenge the administration of the Trust.

"If the writ petitioner feels aggrieved, he may approach before the appropriate jurisdictional forum complaining the administration of the Trust in accordance with law," the Court said.

The Court accordingly held that the writ petition was not maintainable, set aside and quashed the July 10, 2026 order and dismissed the writ petition.

However, the Bench clarified that the Ashram would remain at liberty to seek assistance from the State administration "in the event of any requirement and necessity", with the State administration required to render such assistance in accordance with law.

The appeal was consequently allowed without any order as to costs.

Case: Swami Atmabodhananda @ Subrata Maharaj General Secretary, Ramkrishna Vedanta Math Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: MAT 73 OF 2026  

Click here to read order