Regulation of religious trusts upheld: classification, administrative controls, and regulatory fee all survived constitutional challenge.

The Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 was upheld as a valid scheme for secular regulation of religious trusts. Its classification between Hindu, Sikh and Jain trusts was sustained under Article 14 because it rested on intelligible differences connected to the Act's object of better administration. The controls over trustees and trust property were treated as reasonable regulatory measures under Article 19(1)(f), and the Court found no interference with religious practice or denominational autonomy under Articles 25 and 26. The statutory contribution under section 70 was held to be a fee for regulatory administration, not a tax, and section 55(2) was not inconsistent with constitutional appellate jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 was void for violating Article 14 by excluding Sikhs and by making different arrangements for Hindu and Jain religious trusts; (ii) whether the restrictions placed by the Act on trustees and on the management of trust property infringed Article 19(1)(f); (iii) whether the Act transgressed Articles 25 and 26 by interfering with religious practice and denominational management; and (iv) whether the statutory contribution under section 70 amounted to an unauthorised tax and whether section 55(2) offended Article 133.

Issue (i): whether the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 was void for violating Article 14 by excluding Sikhs and by making different arrangements for Hindu and Jain religious trusts.

Analysis: The classification was upheld because the Act dealt with religious trusts in a context where Hindus, Sikhs and Jains were not similarly situated in all material respects. The Court accepted that the denominations differed in essential religious practices and in the organisational structure of their trusts. The legislative choice to exclude Sikhs and to create separate arrangements for different Jain branches was treated as resting on an intelligible differentia connected with the object of the Act, namely better administration of religious trusts.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 14 failed and the classification was held valid.

Issue (ii): whether the restrictions placed by the Act on trustees and on the management of trust property infringed Article 19(1)(f).

Analysis: The Act was directed to supervision, administration, preservation and proper application of trust property, not to the destruction of proprietary interests. The Court treated the statutory controls as regulatory measures for securing better administration of religious trusts and noticed the safeguards built into the scheme, including review by the District Judge in specified cases. The restrictions were therefore considered reasonable and imposed in the interests of the general public.

Conclusion: The provisions impugned under Article 19(1)(f) were held valid as reasonable restrictions.

Issue (iii): whether the Act transgressed Articles 25 and 26 by interfering with religious practice and denominational management.

Analysis: The Court found no provision that interfered with freedom of conscience, the practice of religion, or the right of a denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The powers conferred on the Board were confined to secular supervision and were subject to the wishes of the founder and the law governing the trust. The Act was viewed as a measure to fulfil the objects of the trust and prevent mismanagement, not to divert religious property or regulate matters of religion.

Conclusion: The challenge under Articles 25 and 26 was rejected.

Issue (iv): whether the statutory contribution under section 70 amounted to an unauthorised tax and whether section 55(2) offended Article 133.

Analysis: The contribution was treated as a fee levied for the secular administration of religious trusts and not as a tax because it was not merged in general revenue and was tied to the regulatory fund created by the Act. Section 55(2) was also held not to bar constitutional appeals, since the Act could not curtail the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or override constitutional appellate provisions.

Conclusion: Section 70 was upheld as a fee and section 55(2) was not found inconsistent with the Constitution.

Final Conclusion: The Act was sustained as a valid regulatory measure for the secular administration and protection of religious trusts, and all constitutional challenges to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statute regulating the secular administration of religious trusts is valid if its classification is reasonable, its controls are directed to proper management and preservation of trust property, and any financial levy imposed is a fee rather than a tax where it is earmarked for regulatory administration rather than general revenue.

---