Statutory deeming provision preserved a pre-existing scheme, while Article 19(1)(f) could not retrospectively invalidate it.

A scheme validly settled under the repealed enactment was treated by the deeming provision in section 103(d) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 as continuing under the later Act, so it could not be re-opened in writ proceedings on a collateral inconsistency challenge; any change had to be sought through the statutory modification mechanism in section 62(3)(a). The Court also held that a scheme framed before the Constitution did not become unconstitutional merely because implementation continued after 26 January 1950, since fundamental rights are not retrospective. The Article 19(1)(f) challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deeming provision in section 103(d) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 required a scheme settled under the repealed enactment to be re-examined for consistency with the later Act in writ proceedings. (ii) Whether a scheme framed before the Constitution and not fully implemented until after 26 January 1950 could be challenged as infringing Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the deeming provision in section 103(d) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 required a scheme settled under the repealed enactment to be re-examined for consistency with the later Act in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The deeming clause was held to continue schemes settled under the earlier Act as if they had been made under the later Act. The legislative scheme of section 103 showed that where the Act intended continuity only subject to consistency with the later Act, it said so expressly. Since section 103(d) contained no such qualifying language, the Court held that the scheme continued automatically and any modification had to be sought through the specific machinery provided by section 62(3)(a), not by collateral challenge in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge based on inconsistency with the later Act was rejected, and the scheme was held to remain operative unless modified under the statutory procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether a scheme framed before the Constitution and not fully implemented until after 26 January 1950 could be challenged as infringing Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that fundamental rights are not retrospective so as to invalidate a scheme that was validly framed under a valid law before the Constitution came into force. The fact that implementation continued or was completed later did not convert the pre-Constitution legal deprivation into a fresh unconstitutional invasion. The relied-upon authorities were distinguished because they concerned invalid orders and not a validly enacted and validly upheld scheme.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge under Article 19(1)(f) failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not succeed because the scheme remained effective under the saving and modification provisions of the later Act, and the pre-Constitution origin of the scheme prevented a successful fundamental-rights challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: A scheme validly framed under a pre-Constitution law continues by virtue of a statutory deeming provision and is not open to collateral invalidation on the ground of Article 19(1)(f); any alteration must be pursued through the specific statutory modification procedure.

---