http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

PETITIONER: PANNALAL BANSILAL PITTI & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1023            1996 SCC  (2) 498  JT 1996 (1)   516        1996 SCALE  (1)405

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             AND  WRIT PETITION [C] NOS. 908, 1066, 1359 & 1375 OF 1987 AND         TRANSFER CASES NOS. 169 OF 1988 & 60 OF 1989                       J U D G M E N T K. RAMASWAMY, J.      This bunch  of writ  petitions and transfer cases is at the behest  of hereditary  trustees of  Hindu Religious  and Charitable  Institutions   and  Endowments  challenging  the constitutionality of  Sections 15, 16, 17, 29 (5) and 144 of the  Andhra   Pradesh   Charitable   and   Hindu   Religious Institutions and  Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) (for short, "the Act").      The facts  in writ  petitions No. 713/87 are sufficient for deciding  the controversy.  The first  petitioner  is  a founder of  several charitable and religious institutions in Hyderabad and  Secunderabad  of  Andhra  Pradesh.  He  is  a hereditary trustee  of a  premier institution  known as Raja Bahadur Sir bansilal Motilal Charitable Trust founded by his father donating  Rs. 5,00,000/- in 1933. It also established Sri Ranganath  Mandir, Sri  Jagannath Mandir,  Sri  Narsingh Mandir, Sri  Lakshman Maharaj,  Raja  Bahadur  Sir  Bansilal Hospital Trust  and Sri  Sanskrit  Sahitya  Nidhi  Trust  in Hyderabad. Hari  Prasad badruka, the 3rd petitioner’s family founded  Shri   Venkatesh  Goraksha  Trust  with  a  sum  of Rs.1,00,000/- and donated 568 acres of land in Dabirpura and Konaipalle villages.  They also  claimed to  have  purchased 58.35 acres  in Hakimpet  for  grazing  the  cows.  Raja  of Jataprolu in  Mahaboobnagar District  founded Madana  Gopala Swamy and  other temples at Jataprolu village; Shri narsimha Swamy and  Shri Ratna  Lakshmi Devi  temples at Singapatnam; and  Shri  Amareshwara  Swamy  temple  at  Kollapuram.  They endowed 300  acres of  seri lands  for performance  of Nitya Nivedhya Deeparadhana.  The first petitioner is a hereditary trustee and  is entitled  to  nominate  other  trustees  for proper management.  He is  also a Mutawalli, who in terms of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

the deed of trust, shall deduct 1/3 of the net income as his remuneration   after    excluding   the    management    and establishment expenses.      It is  the case  of all  the petitioners that they have been properly  and efficiently  maintaining the  aforestated trusts and  charitable or religious institutions without any complaint. The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, 1966 (17 of 1966) ) (for short, ‘the Predecessor  Act of  1966) recognised  their hereditary right and  made them  Chairman of  the respective trusts, in the event  of constituting  a board  of trustees  with  non- hereditary  trustees.   The   religious   institutions   and endowments or  charitable institutions  were established  on charity which  every Hindu  wishes to perform. Establishment of charitable  and religious institutions or endowments is a part of  freedom of  conscience and  right to  maintain  the institutions founded  by them.  The Act, while purporting to regulate administration  and governance  of Hindu charitable and religious institutions or endowment grossly violates the constitutional rights  under  Articles  25  and  26  of  the Constitution.  Several   learned  senior   counsels   S/Shri H.S.Gurujarao,   A.K.    Ganguli,   R.   Venugopala   Reddy, M.N.Krishnamani along  with S/Shri A. Subba Rao and Sampath, argued in  support of  the contentions  of the  petitioners. They also have filed written submissions. Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior  counsel, resisted  the contentions on behalf of the State and also submitted his written arguments.      The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel is that  Articles 25  and 26  guarantee  freedom  to  manage religious affairs  and right to freely profess, practise and propagate  the   religion  to  all  citizens  alike.  Hindus constitute majority  population and  Hindu religion  is  the major religion in the country. Equally Muslim, Christian and Parsee citizens  are entitled  to the similar constitutional rights under  Articles  25  and  26.  Without  touching  the administration and  governance of  charitable  or  religious institutions or endowments founded or maintained by Muslims, Christians   or    Parsees   making   law   regulating   the administration of  Hindu religious  institutions  and  above endowments  offends   Articles   14   and   15(1)   of   the Constitution. It is also contended that when a denomination, which is  a part  of the  major  religion  is  protected  by Article 26,  the major  religions themselves  as  genus  are entitled to  the  protection  of  Article  26.  Institutions belonging to  them cannot, therefore, be regulated under the law  offending   their  right   to  religious  practice.  By operation of  clause (2)  of  Article  25,  law  of  general application in  respect of  religious institutions should be made  and   singling  out   the  religious  institutions  or endowments  established  and  maintained  by  Hindus  is  an invidious   discrimination   violating   Article   14.   The regulation of administration and governance of the religious institutions or  endowments would  amount to  restriction on the  religious  practices  or  freedom  of  religion,  since establishment,  maintenance   and  administration   of   the religious institutions  and endowments  are intertwined with the very  religious faith itself. It is impermissible for an outside agency  or the  party like the State to determine as to which  activity is  essential part  of religion and which part is  not. It  would not, therefore, be open to the State to restrict  or prohibit,  under the  guise of  its  secular power, the  administration of  the religious  or  charitable institutions or endowments, country to what the followers of the  religion   believe  to   be  the  religious  duty.  The administration of  religious or  charitable institution  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

endowments as  part of the religious practice, perceived and rigorously followed by Hindus cannot, therefore, be divested by legislation.      The further contention in this regard is that the State cannot  directly   undertake  to  expend  public  money  for patronizing any  particular  religion.  Under  the  garb  of regulating administration  and maintenance  or religious  or charitable institutions  and endowments, as a secular State, the legislature  cannot make  law to appoint its officers or servants to manage the religious institutions or endowments. Abolition of  hereditary trusteeship  totally  deprives  the right to practise charity or to render charitable service or to establish  religious institutions  as a part of religious charitable disposition  or religious practice, which offends right to religious practice guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It is further contended that without factual foundation of any mismanagement or misutilisation of the funds  of Hindu religious and charitable institutions or endowments,  abolition  of  the  trusteeship  is  arbitrary, unjust and unfair violating Article 14 of the Constitution.      Shri Venugopala  Reddy contended that if any hereditary trustee has  mismanaged or  misutilised  the  funds  of  the religious institutions  or endowment, he could be removed by following the procedure prescribed under the predecessor Act of 1966  and it  being successfully  working, the hereditary right itself  cannot be  divested  under  the  Act  on  that premise. Abolition  of hereditary  trusteeship and divesting him of  the right  to maintain  and administer the religious institution or endowment is not a remedy to cure the defect, if  any,   as  pointed   out  by   Justice  Challa  Kondaiah Commission. In  each case,  the Endowments Department has to conduct a  survey, on  its finding  of any  mismanagement or misutilisation and  appropriate, individual  remedial action would be taken, but on that premise, the right of hereditary trusteeship cannot  be abolished  by the by the Act. He also contended that  when Section  18 of  the Act  recognises and gives right  to representation  to a member of the family in the board  of trustees,  abolition of hereditary trusteeship under Section  16 is  unconstitutional. He  urged that  when right of a representation to a member from the family of the founder of  the trust  of religious institution or endowment is recognised  under Section  18, the  rule of primogeniture envisaged in  the trust,  its abolition is unconstitutional. Further, the  statutory abolition  would dry  up the zeal to establish  a   religious  or   charitable   institution   or endowment. The  pious  wish  or  charitable  disposition  to establish a  religious institution  or endowment is a desire to perpetuate  the memory  of the  founder, who was inspired with religious  piety or charitable disposition. The members of his  family are  entitled to be members of the trust, and the right to chairmanship of the board ensures that the work would be carried out as set out in the deed of endowment.      Shri  Krishnamani   further  contended  that  when  the founder trustee  or the  hereditary trustee of the religious or charitable institution or endowment renders free services in an  honorary capacity, the executive officer and the non- hereditary trustees,  receive salary  or emoluments from the endowment depleting  its source and denuding its very source of income to do better or efficient service to the followers or  for   the  religious  charitable  purpose.  The  trustee appointed by  the donor’s  family would work with dedication which would  be wanting  in the  officers or  non-hereditary trustees, since the latter do not have any personal interest in the  efficient or proper management of the institution or the endowment.  Denial of  that right  to do  service to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

religious institution  or endowment  to the  founder or  the members of  the family  is, therefore, arbitrary, unfair and unjust offending Article 14 of the Constitution.      Shri P.P.  Rao, the  learned  counsel  for  the  State, resisted these  contentions. According  to him,  the  Challa Kondaiah Commission  after exhaustive survey had pointed out diverse defects  in the  administration  and  management  of Hindu charitable and religious institutions or endowments or specific endowments and made several recommendations, one of which relates to abolition of hereditary trusteeship as part of the  scheme. The  report does  indicate the mismanagement and misutilisation of the funds of religious institutions or endowments or  the same  used as  a source to draw money for the family management of the founder. The administration and maintenance of  the religious  or charitable institutions or endowments  are   secular   activities,   though   religious practices are  not, and  the latter have not been interfered with by  the Act.  On the  other hand, they are specifically protected and  the Act  has directed  the officers to follow the established  religious practices and sampradayams and to adhere to  the same  in the  management.  Executive  offices appointed under  the Act  are also  Hindus having  faith and dedication to  the proper  and efficient  management of  the institutions and endowments. Hereditary trustee, by its very nature,  is  not  an  insurance  for  efficient  and  proper management. With  a view  to remedy  the defects  pointed in Challa Kondaiah  Commission,  the  legislature  stepped  in, abolished the hereditary trusteeship, made provision for the payment of  emoluments to  them and  regulated the  same  in Chapter III,  for the proper and efficient management of the religious  institutions   and  endowments.  The  legislative scheme is only to ensure efficiency and proper management in a secular  manner and,  therefore, the provisions are not in violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. He also pointed out  that there  is no  prohibition to  make the law applicable to  Hindu religious  situations  and  endowments, without bringing  religious or  charitable  institutions  or endowments  established   by  persons   belonging  to  other religions. It  could be  done in  a phased  manner, wherever evils are  pointed out.  The statutory  intervention in that behalf would  be inevitable and accordingly be availed of to enact a  law in  that behalf. The Act which is applicable to Hindu religious  or charitable  institutions or  endowments, therefore,  does  not  violate  Article  14.  Procedure  for appointment of  a non-hereditary trustee is a fair procedure for due  administration  and  maintenance  of  religious  or charitable institutions and endowments.      Having regard  to these diver contentions, the question arises: whether  Sections 15,  16, 17,  29(5) and 144 of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution. They reads thus:      "15. Appointment  of Board of Trustees:-      (1)  In   respect  of  a  charitable  or      religious   institution   or   endowment      including in  the list  published  under      clause (a) of Section 6-      (a) whose  annual income  exceeds rupees      ten   lakhs,    the   Government   shall      constitute   a    Board   of    Trustees      consisting of  nine persons appointed by      them;      (b) whose  annual income does not exceed      rupees ten lakhs, the Commissioner shall      constitute   a    Board   of    Trustees      consisting of seven persons appointed by      him.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

    (2)  In   respect  of  a  charitable  or      religious   institution   or   endowment      included in  the  list  published  under      clause (b)  of  Section  6,  the  Deputy      Commissioner having  jurisdiction  shall      constitute   a    Board   of    Trustees      consisting of seven persons appointed by      him.      (3) In  the case  of any  charitable  or      religious   institution   or   endowment      included in  the  list  published  under      clause (c)  of Section  6, the Assistant      Commissioner having  jurisdiction  shall      constitute   a    Board   of    Trustees      consisting of  five persons appointed by      him :           Provided   that    the    Assistant      Commissioner may  either in the interest      of the  institution or  endowment or for      any  other   sufficient  cause   or  for      reasons  to   be  recorded   in  writing      appoint a  single trustee  instead of  a      Board of Trustees,      16. Abolition  of hereditary  trustees:-      Notwithstanding   any    compromise   or      agreement entered  into or scheme framed      or judgment,  decree, or order passed by      any court,  tribunal or  other authority      or in  a deed or other document prior to      the commencement  of  this  Act  and  in      force on  such commencement,  the rights      of  a  person  for  the  office  of  the      hereditary  trustee   or  mutawalli   or      dharmakarta or  muntazim or  by whatever      name it  is called shall stand abolished      on such commencement.      17. Procedure for making appointments of      trustees and  their term:-(1)  In making      the  appointment   of   trustees   under      Section   15    the   Government,    the      Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or      the Assistant  Commissioner as  the case      may be,  shall have  due regard  to  the      religious  denomination   or  any   such      section thereof to which the institution      belongs or the endowment is made and the      wishes of the founder:           Provided that  one of  the trustees      shall be from the family of the founder,      if qualified.      Further details are not relevant.      XXX               XXX                XXX      (4) No person shall be a trustee in more      than one Board of Trustees.      29.(5)   (a)   The   Executive   Officer      appointed under  this section  shall  be      under the administrative control of, the      trustee of  the institution or endowment      and shall  be responsible  for  carrying      out all lawful directions issued by such      trustee, from time to time;      (b) The Executive Officer shall, subject      to such  restrictions as  may be imposed      by the Government -      (i)  be   responsible  for   the  proper

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

    maintenance  and   custody  of  all  the      records, accounts  and  other  documents      and  of   all  the   jewels,  valuables,      moneys, funds  and other  properties  of      the institution or endowment;      (ii) arrange  for the  proper collection      of   income   and   for   incurring   of      expenditure;      (iii) sue  or be sued by the name of the      institution or  endowment in  all  legal      proceedings :           Provided that  any legal proceeding      pending    immediately     before    the      commencement of  this Act, by or against      an institution or endowment in which any      person other  than an  Executive Officer      is suing  or being  sued  shall  not  be      affected;      (iv)  all   moneys   received   by   the      institution or endowment in such bank or      treasury as  may be  prescribed  and  be      entitled  to  sign  all  orders  cheques      against such moneys;           Provided that  such deposit  may be      made in  the treasury  if  the  rate  of      interest offered  by it  is higher  than      that of any bank.      (v) have power in cases of emergency, to      direct the  execution of any work or the      doing of  any act  which is provided for      in  the  budget  for  the  year  or  the      immediate execution or doing of which is      in  his   opinion,  necessary   for  the      preservation  of   properties   of   the      institution  or  endowment  or  for  the      service  or   safety  of   the  pilgrims      resorting thereto and to direct that the      expenses of  executing such  work or the      doing such  act shall  be paid  from the      funds of the institution or endowment :           Provided that the Executive Officer      shall report  forthwith to  the  trustee      any action  taken by him under this sub-      clause and the reasons therefor.      (c) The  Executive Officer  shall,  with      the  prior   approval  of  the  trustee,      institute any  legal proceedings  in the      name of the institution or endowment, or      defend any such legal proceedings;      (d) Where  there is no Executive Officer      in  respect   of   any   charitable   or      religious institution  or endowment, the      trustee or  the Chairman of the Board of      Trustees, as  the case  may be,  of  the      institution or  endowment shall exercise      the powers  perform  the  functions  and      discharge the  duties  of  an  Executive      Officer.       XXX              XXX            XXX      144. Abolition  of shares  in Hundi  and      other   rusums:-   Notwithstanding   any      judgment, decree  or order of any Court,      Tribunal  or   other  authority  or  any      scheme, custom,  usage or  agreement, or      in   any    manual   prepared   by   any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

    institution or  in any  Farmana or Sanad      or any  deed or  order of the Government      to the contrary governing any charitable      or religious  institution or  endowment,      all shares  which are  payable or  being      paid  or   given  or   allowed  at   the      commencement of this Act to any trustee,      Dharmakartha,  Mutawalli,   any   office      holder   or    servant   including   all      offerings made  in the  premises of  the      Temple or  at  such  places  as  may  be      specified by  the Trustee, all Prasadams      and  Panyarams  offered  either  by  the      Temple or  devotee, and such other kinds      of offerings, all shares in the lands of      the institution or endowment allotted or      allowed  to   be   in   possession   and      enjoyment of  any archaka, office holder      or  servant   towards  remuneration   or      otherwise for  rendering service and for      defraying  the  ‘Paditharam’  and  other      expenses connected  with the  service or      management of  the temple,  shall  stand      abolished with  effect on  and from  the      commencement of this Act."      The object  of the  Act is to consolidate and amend the law  relating   to  the  administration  and  governance  of charitable and  Hindu religious  institutions and endowments in the  State of  Andhra Pradesh  as the  title of  the  Act itself  indicates.  It  applies  to  all  public  charitable institutions and  endowments, whether  registered or not, in accordance with  the provisions  of the Act other than wakfs governed under  the Wakfs  Act, 1954. It also applies to all Hindu public  religious institutions  and endowments whether registered or  not in  accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section  2(16) defines "hereditary trustee" to mean the trustee  of   a  charitable  or  religious  institution  and endowment, the succession to whose office devolves according to the  rule of  succession laid  down  by  the  founder  or according to  usage or  custom applicable to the institution or endowment  or according  to the law of succession for the time being  in  force,  as  the  case  may  be.  "Charitable endowment" means  all property  given  or  endowed  for  any charitable purpose.  Religious institutions or endowment, as defined in  Section 2(22), means property (including movable property) and  religious offerings  whether in cash or kind, given or  endowed for the support of a religious institution or given  or endowed  for the  performance of any service or charity of  a public  nature connected  herewith or  of  any other  religious   charity  and   includes  the  institution concerned  and   also  the   premises  thereof.   "Religious institution" defined  in Section 2(23), means a math, temple or specific  endowment and  includes a Brindavan, Samadhi or any  other  institution  established  or  maintained  for  a religious purpose.  "Specific endowment", defined by Section 2(25),  means   any  property   or  money  endowed  for  the performance  of   any  specific  service  or  charity  in  a charitable or  religious institution  or for the performance of any  other charity, religious or otherwise, Under Section 6 of  the Act, the Commissioner shall prepare separately and publish in the prescribed manner, a list of all religious or charitable institutions  and endowments etc., all properties belonging to  or given  or  endowed  to  the  charitable  or religious institutions  or endowments,  as the  case may be. Equally, of  public religious  or charitable institutions or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

endowments. Section  15 deals  with appointment  of board of trustees  in   accordance  with   the  procedure  prescribed thereunder.  Section   16,  with   a  non  obstante  clause, abolishes hereditary trusteeship. Consequently, the right of a person  for  the  office  of  the  hereditary  trustee  or mutawalli or  dharmakarta or  muntazim or  by whatever  name called, stands abolished on commencement of the Act. Section 17 provides  procedure to  make appointment  of trustees and their  term   of  office.   Section  29(5)   deal  with  the appointment and  duties of  Executive Officers  who shall be responsible for carrying out all lawful directions issued by trustee from  time to  time. He shall be responsible for the proper maintenance  and custody of all records, accounts and other documents  and all  the jewels,  valuables etc. of the institution  or   endowment.  Section  144  deals  with  the abolition of shares being paid or allowance given or allowed to any  trustee, dharmakartha,  mutawalli, any office holder or servant.  The  shares  in  the  land  or  institution  or endowment allotted  or  allowed  to  be  in  possession  and enjoyment of office holder towards remuneration or otherwise stands abolished.      To complete  the  narrative  and  to  have  homogeneous whole, it  is of  relevance to  tread into  the  powers  and duties of  the trustees regulated in Chapter III of the Act. Section 23  deals with powers of the trusses. The trustee of every charitable  or religious  institution or endowment has to administer  its affairs,  manage its properties and apply its funds  in accordance  with the  terms of  the trust, the usage of  the  institution  or  endowment,  and  all  lawful directions which  a competent authority may issue in respect thereof. He is also enjoined to act as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence  would deal  with such  affairs, fund  and properties, if  they were  of his own. All powers incidental to the  prudent and  beneficial administration of charitable or religious  institution or endowment are entrusted to him. Other details  are incidental  to the  exercise of the power and for  the present  controversy they  are not  of material consequence, hence  omitted. Section 24 prescribes duties of the trustees. Section 25 deals with fixation of dittam known as "scale  of expenditure".  Section 26 prescribes powers of trustees of charitable or religious institution over trustee of  specific   endowments.  Section  27  validates  acts  of trustees or  board  of  trustees  despite  defect  in  their performance thereof.  Section 29  deals with appointment and duties of Executive officers and Section 32 with appointment of  subordinate  officers.  Section  30  and  31  relate  to appointment of Engineering staff, Architects and Shilpis.      The first  question is whether it is necessary that the legislature should  make law  uniformly  applicable  to  all religious  or   charitable  or   public   institutions   and endowments established  or maintained  by people  professing all religions.  In a  pluralist society  like India in which people have  faith in their respective religions, beliefs or tenets propounded  by  different  religions  or  their  off- shoots, the founding fathers, while making the Constitution, were confronted  with problems to unify and integrate people of India  professing different  religious  faiths,  born  in different  castes,   sex  or  sub-sections  in  the  society speaking  different  Languages  and  dialects  in  different regions and  provided secular  Constitution to integrate all sections of  the society  as a  united Bharat. The directive principles of  the Constitution themself visualise diversity and attempted to foster uniformity among people of different faiths. A uniform law, though is highly desirable, enactment thereof in one go perhaps may be counter-productive to unity

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

and integrity of the nation. In a democracy governed by rule of law,  gradual progressive  change  and  order  should  be brought about.  Making law  or amendment  to a law is a slow process and  the legislature  attempts to  remedy where  the need is felt most acute. It would, therefore, be inexpedient and incorrect  to think  that  all  laws  have  to  be  made uniformly applicable  to all  people in one go. The mischief or defect  which is most acute can be remedied by process of law at stages.      The second question is: whether abolition of hereditary trusteeship violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Article 25(1) assures, subject to public order, morality and health and  to the  other provisions of Chapter III that all persons are  equally entitled  to freedom  of conscience and the  right   freely  to   profess,  practice  and  propagate religion. Sub-clause  (2) of  Article 25 saves the operation of the  existing law  and also  frees the State from Article 25(1)  to   make  any  law  regulating  or  restricting  any economic, financial,  political or  other secular  activity, which may  be associated  with religious  practice. Equally, law may  provide for social welfare and reform, the throwing open of  Hindu religious  institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of the society. Article 26 gives freedom to  manage  religious  affairs,  subject  to  public order, morality  and health, every religious denomination or any section  thereof to establish institutions for religious and charitable purpose, to manage its own affairs in matters of religion,  to  own  and  acquire  movable  and  immovable property and  to administer such property in accordance with law.      Contents of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution have been considered  in several  decisions starting  from Shirur Mutt case  (infra) and  have been placed beyond controversy. The first  principle laid  is that  the protection  of these articles is  not limited  to matters  of doctrine or belief. They extend  also to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore,  a   guarantee  for   rituals  and   observances, ceremonies and motive of worship which are integral parts of religion. The  second principle  is that what constitutes an essential part of religion or religious properties has to be decided by  the Courts  with a  reference to the doctrine of particular  religion   and  includes   practices  which  are regarded by the community as a apart of its religion.      In The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri  Lakshmindra Thirtha  Swamiar  of  Sri  Shirur  Mutt [(1954) S.C.R.  1005], known as Shirur Mutt case, this Court had held that the language of Article 25 indicates to secure to  every   person  subject  to  public  order,  health  and morality, a  freedom not  only to  entertain such  religious belief,  as   may  be   approved  of  by  his  judgment  and conscience, but  also to  exhibit his belief in such outward acts as he thinks proper and to propagate or disseminate his ideas for  the edification  of others. It is the propagation of  belief   that  is   protected,  no  matter  whether  the propagation takes  place in  a church,  or monastery or in a temple or  parlour meeting.  At page  1023, it was held that the word "religion" has not been defined in the Constitution and it  is a  term which  is hardly susceptible of any rigid definition. Religion  is certainly  a matter  of faith  with individuals  or   communities  and  it  is  not  necessarily theistic. Religion,  undoubtedly, has  its basis in a system of beliefs  or doctrines  which are  regarded by  those  who profess that  religion conducive  to  their  spiritual  well being. A  religion may  not only  lay down a code of ethical rules for  its  followers  to  accept,  it  might  prescribe

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

rituals and  observances, ceremonies  and modes  of  worship etc. guarantee  under the Constitution not only protects the freedom of  religious  denomination  but  it  also  protects ceremonies and  modes  of  worship  which  are  regarded  as integral parts  of religion;  and the forms and observations might extend  even to  interests of  food  and  dress.  What Article 25(2)  (a) contemplates  is not  regulation  by  the State of  religious practices  as such, the freedom of which is guaranteed by the Constitution. The guarantee is in-built to every religion to establish and maintain institutions for religious and  charitable purposes  and their  management in matters of religion to own and acquire movable and immovable properties. But  they are  subject to  Article 25  and other provisions of the Constitution.      Founding a temple or a charitable institution is an act of religious duty and has all the aspects of Dharma.      BIG PRARSARA SMRITI      "10th  Chapter,   Sloks  1,   2  and   3      indicates as under      "Let me  describe the charities with the      procedures, narrated by Sage Parasara to      Veda Vyasa :      1. By charity one can go to heaven.      2. By charity one enjoys peace.      3. Here  and there  [in this  and  other      world], the  one who did charity will be      respected.      4. There  is no better religious duty in      all the three worlds than doing charity.      5. Therefore, charity to be practiced as      far as possible      MANU SMRITI      4TH Chapter Sloka 227, 228      1. One  should  practice  charity  daily      with a  pleasant heart to the deserving,      as far  as he  can. Offering  charity is      real worship  of  the  God  without  the      elaborate    procedure     of     having      sacrificial fire lit etc.      2. At least something should be given in      charity when  sought as  one of the many      beneficiaries may  lift the  donor  from      going to hell."      Bhagwat Geeta  and  some  of  the  Smrities  extol  and motivate charity  for  spiritual  well  being  as  is  shown hereunder:      "1. BHAGWAD GEETA - CHAPTER 18      Yagya  Dana   Tapa  Karma,  Na  Tyajyam,      Karyamev yat.      The Ygnya,  charity and  Tapas are never      to be  given up; in fact all these three      things are  to be strictly observed on a      continuous basis.  These  are  the  most      sacred acts which makes the man pure.      2. VYSA SMRITHI - CHAPTER IV - SLOKA 15-      17      I  am  discribing  the  Dana  Dharma  as      detailed by  Vyasa. What one gives daily      as charity  and what one enjoys daily is      the only  wealth one  has  as  his.  The      other is  the wealth  meant for some one      else.  For,   some  one   else  will  be      enjoying with  his wealth  and even  his      wife, when the man dies.      3. KAPILA SMRITHI - SLOKA 427

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

    Charity shall be done by all; especially      when one  has the  means  he  should  do      charity   without    fail    on    every      occasions."      Hindu Piety  found expression  in establishing temples, creation of  endowments or  specific endowments, by gifts to idols and images consecrated and installed in temples and to religious institutions  of every kind. The word ‘charity’ in a legal sense includes every gift for educational, a general public use,  to be applied consistent with existing laws for the benefit  of an indefinite number of persons and designed to benefit  them from a religious, moral, physical or social stand-point -  vide Black’s  Law  Dictionary  at  page  233. Therefore, every  Hindu imbued  with religious or charitable disposition and  pious wish  would  create  or  establish  a charitable or religious institution or endowment or specific endowments for  general public  use to be applied consistent with the  law for  the benefit  of an  indefinite number  of people or  persons and  designed to  benefit the  religious, moral and  social stand-point  equally of educational stand- point. Therefore,  a Hindu  who has  founded a  religious or charitable institution  or endowment has a fundamental right to administer  it in  accordance with  law; and  so, the law must leave  the right  of administration  to  the  religious denomination  or   general  body   itself,  subject  to  the restrictions and  regulations as  the  law  might  chose  to impose. In Shirur Mutt case (supra), this Court held at page 1029 that a law which takes away the right to administration to the religious denomination altogether and vests it in any other authority  would amount  to a  violation of  the right guaranteed under  clause (d)  of Article 26. So. A law would not  totally   divest  the  administration  of  a  religious institution or endowment, but the State has general right to regulate the  right to  administration  of  a  religious  or charitable institution  or endowment;  and such  a  law  may chose to  impose such  restrictions whereof as are felt most acute and provide a remedy therefor.      In Ratilal  Panachand Gandhi  vs. The State of Bombay & Ors. [(1954)  S.C.R. 1055  at page 1063], this Court further had pointed  out the distinction between clauses (b) and (d) of Article  26 thus:  in regard  to affairs  in  matters  of religion, the  right of management given to a religious body is a  guaranteed fundamental  right which no legislation can take away.  On the  other hand, as regards administration of property which  a religious  denomination is entitled to own and acquire, it has undoubtedly the right to administer such property, but  only in  accordance with law. This means that the  State   can  regulate   the  administration   of  trust properties by  means of laws validly enacted; but here again it should  be remembered that under Article 26(d), it is the religious denomination  or general  body of  religion itself which has been given the right to administer its property in accordance with  any law which the State may validly impose. A  law,   which  takes  away  the  right  of  administration altogether from  the religious  denomination and vests it in any other or secular authority, would amount to violation of the right  which is  guaranteed  by  Article  26(d)  of  the Constitution.  In  that  case,  the  Court  found  that  the exercise of  the power  by the  Charity Commissioner  or the Court to  divert the  trust property  or funds  for purposes which he  or it considered expedient or proper, although the original objects  of the  founder can  still be carried out, was an  unwarranted encroachment on the freedom of religious institutions in  regard to the management of their religious affairs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

    It would  thus be  clear that  the right to establish a religious institution  or endowment  is a  part of religious belief or  faiths, but  its administration is a secular part which would  be regulated  by law  appropriately made by the legislature. The  regulation  is  only  in  respect  of  the administration  of   the  secular   part  of  the  religious institution or endowment, and not of beliefs, tenets, usages and practices,  which are  integral part  of that  religious belief or faith.      It is  true that  Section 16 of the Act, which has been reproduced  earlier,   abolishes  the  hereditary  right  in trusteeship but  not the  right to trusteeship itself. It is obvious that  Section 18  itself  recognises  the  right  to management of  a  religious  or  charitable  institution  or endowment or  specific  endowment  by  one  of  the  members belonging to  the family  of the founder as trustee; but, of course, as a member of the board of non-hereditary trustees. Though hereditary right is a part of the right to administer the Hindu  religious or  charitable Institution or endowment under the  predecessor Act  1966, it  is seen  that  Justice Challa Kondaiah  Commission, which  is a store-house for the legislature to  find the  existence of  evils or mischief in the administration  and governance  of charitable  and Hindu religious  institutions   or  endowments   and   which   the legislature has  taken cognizance of while making the law at hand, had  pointed out  the acute  need to  provide  remedy. Words are  the skin  of the  language. The language opens up the bey  of the  maker’s mind. The Legislature gives its own meaning and  interpretation of the law. It does so employing appropriate psephology  to attain  the object of legislative policy which it seeks to achieve.      Section 16  with a  non obstante  clause abolishes  the hereditary right  in trusteeship  of a  charitable and Hindu religious institutions or endowments. It is settled law that the legislature  within its  competence, may  amend the law. The language  in Section  16 seeks to alter the pre-existing operation of  the law. The alteration in language may be the result of  many factors. It is settled legislative device to employ non  obstante clause  to sustaibility  alter the pre- existing law  consistent with  the legislative  policy under the new  Act to  provide the  remedy for  the  mischief  the legislature felt most acute. Section 16, therefore, applying non  obstante   clause,  altered   the  operation   of   any compromise, agreement  entered into  or a scheme framed or a judgment, decree  or order  passed by any court, tribunal or other authority  or any  deed or other document prior to the Act. The pre-existing hereditary right in trusteeship in the office of the hereditary trustee, mutawalli, dharmakartha or muntazim or  by whatever name it is called and abolished the same prospectively  from the date of the commencement of the Act.  Article   15  [1]   of  the   Constitution   prohibits discrimination  against  any  citizen  on  grounds  only  of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.      Section 17  to 19  recognise  general  right  to  every qualified Hindu  to claim appointment as trustee. Section 16 intends to  remove discrimination  on  grounds  of  heredity which otherwise  is violative  of Article  15(1). Article 13 declares such  inconsistent custom  as void. The predecessor Act 1966  recognised customary  right, which the legislature has power  to take  away such  recognition and  order  every eligible Hindu  to be  considered for appointment as trustee in the  manner prescribed by law. Hereditary principle being inconsistent with  Article 15(1), the legislature thought it fit to  abolish the  same. Moreover, by reason of hereditary nature  of  succession  to  trusteeship  or  mutawalli  etc.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

inherently visited with mismanagement or misappropriation of the  property   of  the   charitable  or   Hindu   religious institutions or endowments, the object of the endowment etc. thereby getting defeated. With a view to remedy the same and to effectuate proper and efficient management and governance of  charitable   and  Hindu   religious   institutions   and endowments, the  Act was enacted. Instead of management by a single person  Chapter III introduced in Sections 15, 17, 18 and 19  as a  composite scheme prescribing disqualifications and   qualifications    for   trusteeship,   procedure   for appointment of  trustees and appointment and constitution of the board  of trustees  so as  to have collective proper and efficient administration  and governance  of the institution and endowment.  The abolition  of the  right  to  hereditary trusteeship,   therefore,   cannot   be   declared   to   be unconstitutional.      Chapter III relates to administration and management of charitable and  Hindu religious institutions and endowments, as its  heading indicates.  By operation  of Section  14 all properties belonging  to or given or endowed to a charitable or religious  situation or  endowment  shall  vest  in  that institution. A  scheme has  been evolved  therein  first  to abolish the  hereditary right  in trusteeship. That has been accomplished  under   Section  16.   As  a   corollary,  the management and  governance was entrusted to the trustees and the board  of trustees  as  a  representative  body.  It  is already held that the scheme for appointment of the trustees and constitution  of the  board of trustees is to effectuate the   legislative    object   of    efficient   and   proper administration  and   management  of  charitable  and  Hindu religious institutions and endowments. The Act entrusted the collective responsibility to the board of trustees appointed under Section  15. Section 15 makes a distinction in respect of the  charitable or  religious institutions  or endowments covered by  clauses (a)  to (c)  of Section  6  as  distinct classes.  In   respect  of   the  charitable   or  religious institutions or  endowments covered by clause (a) of Section 6 whose  annual income  is Rs. 10 lakhs and above, the board of trustees consisting of 9 persons shall be appointed under clause (a)  of sub-section (1) of Section 15. The appointing authority of such board of trustees shall be the Government. In  case  the  income  does  not  exceed  Rs.10  lakhs,  the Commissioner has  been  given  power  to  appoint  board  of trustees consisting  of 7  persons. In respect of charitable or religious institutions or endowments included in the list published  under   clause  (b)  of  Section  6,  the  Deputy Commissioner  having  jurisdiction  has  been  empowered  to constitute a  board of  trustees consisting  of 7 persons as envisaged under  sub-section (2)  of Section 15. In the case of  charitable   or  religious  institutions  or  endowments included in  the list  published under clause (c) of Section 6, the  Assistant Commissioner  having jurisdiction has been empowered  to  appoint  trustees  and  constitute  board  of trustees  consisting   of  five  persons.  In  the  case  of charitable or religious institutions or endowment covered by clause (c)  of Section  6, obviously  based upon the factual matrix, in  the interest  of the institution or endowment or for any  other sufficient  cause after  recording reasons in writing, the  Assistant Commissioner  is  empowered  by  the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 15 to appoint a single trustee  to   a  charitable   or  religious  institution  or endowment instead  of appointing and constituting a board of trustees. It could be seen that the scheme of appointment of the trustees  and appointment  and constitution of the board of the  trustees being  an integral  part and having evolved

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

policy to  entrust collective  responsibility of  management and administration  of charitable  and religious institution or endowment  instead of entrusting such responsibility to a single individual,  Section 15  was brought  on  statute  to effectuate the  said policy.  The legislative  competence is not questioned.  The policy  involved cannot  be faulted nor can it  be assailed  as unconstitutional  when it  seeks  to achieve a  public purpose,  viz., secular  management of the charitable  or   religious  institutions  or  endowments  to effectuate efficient and proper management and governance of the said institutions. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that  abolition of  the hereditary right in trusteeship is unexceptionable,  it being  a part of due administration, which is  a secular  activity. Being a permissible law under Article 25(2),  it is  not violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution. It  cannot further be held that either Section 15 or Section 16 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.      But immediate  question is  whether taking  away of the management and  vesting  the  same  in  the  board  of  non- hereditary trustees,  constituted under Section 15, is valid in law.  It is  seen that the perennial and perpetual source to  establish   or  create   any  religious   or  charitable institution or  endowment of  a specific  endowment  is  the charitable  disposition   of  a   pious  persons   or  other benevolent  motivating   factors,  but  to  the  benefit  of indeterminate number  of people  having the common religious faith and  belief which  the founder espouses. Even a desire to perpetuate  the memory  of an  philanthropist or  a pious person or  a member  of the family or founder himself may be the  motive   to  establish   a  religious   or   charitable institution  or   endowment  or  specific  endowment.  Total deprivation of  its establishment  and registration and take over of  such bodies  by the State would dry up such sources or acts  of pious  or  charitable  disposition  and  act  as disincentive to the common detriment.      Hindus are  majority in  population and  Hinduism is  a major religion.  While Articles  25 and 26 granted religious freedom to  minority religions  like Islam, Christianity and Judaism, they  do not  intend to  deny the same guarantee to Hindus. Therefore,  protection under  Articles 25  and 26 is available to  the people  professing Hindu religion, subject to the  law therein.  The right to establish a religious and charitable institution  is a  part of  religious  belief  or faith and,  though law  made under  clause (2) of Article 25 may impose  restrictions on  the exercise of that right, the right to  administer and  maintain such  institution  cannot altogether be  taken away  and vested  in other  party; more particularly, in  the officers  of a secular Government. The administration of  religious  institution  or  endowment  or specific endowment  being a  secular activity,  it is not an essential part  of religion  and, therefore, the legislature is competent  to enact  law, as  in Part  III  of  the  Act, regulating  the   administration  and   governance  of   the religious or  charitable institutions or endowment. They are not part  of religious  practices or customs. The State does not directly  undertake their  administration and expend any public money  for maintenance  and governance  thereof.  Law regulates  appropriately   for   efficient   management   or administration  or   governance  of   charitable  and  Hindu religious institutions or endowments or specific endowments, through its officers or officers appointed under the Act.      The question then is whether legislative declaration of the need  for maintenance,  administration and governance of all  charitable   and  Hindu   religious   institutions   or endowments or  specific endowments  and taking over the same

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

and vesting the management in a trustee or board of trustees is valid  in law.  It is  true, as rightly contended by Shri P.P. Rao,  that  the  legislature  acting  on  the  material collected by  Justice Challa Kondaiah Commission amended and repealed the  predecessor Act  1966 and  brought the  Act on statute. Section 17 of the predecessor Act of 1966 had given power to  a hereditary  trustee to  be the  chairman of  the board  of   non-hereditary  trustee.   Though  abolition  of hereditary right in trusteeship under Section 16 has already been upheld,  the charitable  and religious  institution  or endowment owes  its existence  to the  founder or members of the family  who would  resultantly evince greater and keener responsibility and  interest in  its  proper  and  efficient management and governance. The autonomy in this behalf is an assurance to  achieve due  fulfillment of the objective with which it  was founded  unless, in  due course,  foul in  its management is  proved. Therefore,  so long as it is properly and efficiently  managed, he  is entitled  to due freedom of management in  terms of the deed of endowment or established practice  or   usage.  In   case  a  board  of  trustees  is constituted, the  right to  preside over  the board given to the founder  or any  member of  his  family  would  generate feeling  to   actively  participate,  not  only  as  a  true representative of  the source,  but the  same also  generate greater influence  in proper and efficient management of the charitable or  religious institution  or endowment. Equally, it enables  him to  persuade other  members  to  follow  the principles, practices,  tenets, customs  and sampradayams of the founder  of the  charitable or  religious institution or endowment or  specific endowment. Mere membership along with others, many  a times,  may diminish  the personality of the member of the family. Even in case some funds are needed for repairs, improvement,  expansion etc.,  the board  headed by the founder  or his  family member  may raise funds from the public to do the needful, while the executive officer, being a Government  servant, would be handicapped or in some cases may not  even show  interest or  inclination in that behalf. With a  view, therefore,  to effectuate  the object  of  the religious  or   charitable  institution  or  endowment  o  r specific endowment  and to  encourage establishment  of such institutions in future, making the founder or in his absence a member of his family to be a chairperson and to accord him major say in the management and governance would be salutary and effective.  The founder or a member of his family would, thereby, enable  to effectuate  the  proper,  efficient  and effective  management   and  governance   of  charitable  or religious institution  or endowment  or  specific  endowment thereof in  future. It  would  add  incentive  to  establish similar institutions.      Keeping this  pragmatic perspective  in  consideration, the question  that emerges is: whether Sections 17 and 29(5) are valid in law. Reading down the provisions of an Act is a settled principle  of interpretation  so as to sustain their constitutionality,  as  well  as  for  effectuation  of  the purpose of  the statute.  With the  above in  mind,  we  may examine  the   validity  of  Section  17  and  29(5).  These statutory provisions  are grounded  on the  findings of  the report  of   Challa  Kondaiah  Commission,  which  indicated mismanagement and  misutilisation of funds of charitable and Hindu religious  institutions and  endowments in  a big way. This is,  however, a general finding; and we are prepared to agree with  the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the charitable and religious institutions may not be painted with the  same brush.  We have  no doubt that there would be charitable or  religious institutions in the State which are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

neither mismanaged  nor there  is misutilisation  of  funds. Even so,  if the  legislature acted  on the general findings recorded by  the Commissioner, due weightage has to be given to the  same. Our  view that the board of trustees should be headed either  by the  founder or  a member  of his  family, would go  a long way in seeing the fulfillment of the wishes and desires of the founder.      Sections 17  and 29(5)  cannot, therefore,  be faulted. Whatever rigor  these  sections  have,  would  be  duly  get softened by the requirement of the board being headed by the founder or  any of  his family  members, as the case may be. Subject to  this rider,  we uphold the validity of these two Sections.      The  question   then  is:   whether  abolition  of  the emoluments under Section 144 is unconstitutional? It is seen that the object of the Act is to prevent misuse of the trust for personal  benefit. It  is founded  on the  report of the aforesaid Commission.  It is  a matter of legislative wisdom and policy.  It is  not the  contention that the legislature has no  competence to  abolish the  system  of  payment.  As stated earlier,  it is  a legislative judgment reflective of the will  of the  sovereign people.  The  Court  would  give respect and primacy to the legislative judgment, rather than to judicial  conclusion. So,  we are  of the considered view that Section  144 is not unconstitutional in relation to its application to  charitable and  religious  institutions  and endowments. The  scope and  ambit of  Section 144  would  be fully discussed  in Archaka  cases, i.e.,  W.P. No. 638/87 & batch.      So, we  uphold the  validity of  Sections 15,  16,  17, 29(5) and  144, subject  to the  rider mentioned earlier qua Sections 17  and 29(5).  The writ petitions and the transfer cases are disposed of accordingly. No costs.