Article 26 and temple management rights upheld only for surviving denominational interests; regulatory trust provisions sustained.

Article 26 protects only denominational rights that continued to subsist at the commencement of the Constitution; a right of temple management validly vested in the State before 26 January 1950 was not revived, so the respondents had no enforceable constitutional claim to reclaim management. Provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act regulating registration, accounts, audit, investment and court-supervised administration of public trust property were treated as permissible regulatory measures under Article 26(d), not interference with religion. The registration levy was upheld as a fee, not a tax, because it was linked to the cost of the regulatory services rendered. The impugned provisions were therefore sustained and the High Court's directions were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the management of Shri Rikhabdevji temple had validly vested in the State before the Constitution, so that the respondents could claim a right to its management under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. (ii) Whether the impugned provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, including the registration fee and the provisions concerning management of public trusts, were unconstitutional.

Issue (i): Whether the management of Shri Rikhabdevji temple had validly vested in the State before the Constitution, so that the respondents could claim a right to its management under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The temple was found on the materials to be a Jain temple, but the decisive question was whether the right of management had already been taken over before the Constitution and had thereafter continued in the successor State. On the documentary and historical record, the management of the temple had been taken over by the erstwhile ruler and had vested in the State before 26 January 1950. Rights that had been lost by a valid pre-Constitution law were not revived by Article 26. The administration of property is protected by Article 26(d), but that protection extends only to rights which still subsist and does not recreate a right already extinguished.

Conclusion: The respondents had no enforceable constitutional right to reclaim management of the temple, and the High Court was wrong in directing constitution of a committee for its management.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, including the registration fee and the provisions concerning management of public trusts, were unconstitutional.

Analysis: Provisions regulating registration, investment, accounts, audit, and court-supervised administration of public trust property were treated as measures of regulatory control over trust property and not as interference with matters of religion. The committee provisions in Section 53 were read as requiring representation from persons connected with the denomination and as containing safeguards through ascertainment of the wishes of interested persons. The registration levy under Section 17(3) was held to be a fee, not a tax, because the collections were shown to be far below the expenditure on the Devasthan Department and the levy was connected with the regulatory services rendered. The provisions struck down by the High Court were therefore upheld.

Conclusion: Section 17(3) and Section 52(1)(d) and (e), read with Section 53, were not unconstitutional, and the regulatory scheme of the Act was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The State succeeded in the appeals, the directions of the High Court were set aside, and the respondents' appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 26 safeguards only those denominational rights that subsist at the commencement of the Constitution, while legislative regulation of trust property is permissible under Article 26(d) if it does not abolish the denomination's religious rights; a levy is a fee and not a tax when it is shown to be connected with the cost of the regulatory service.

---