TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of key provisions in Andhra Pradesh religious institutions act</h1> <h3>Pannalal Bansilal Pitti & Ors. Etc Versus State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 15, 16, 17, 29(5), and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Sections 15, 16, 17, 29(5), and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.Summary Issue-wise:1. Constitutionality of Section 15:Section 15 deals with the appointment of a Board of Trustees for charitable or religious institutions or endowments based on their annual income. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 15, stating that it aims to effectuate the legislative object of efficient and proper administration and governance of charitable and Hindu religious institutions and endowments. The legislative competence and policy involved were not questioned and were deemed constitutional.2. Constitutionality of Section 16:Section 16 abolishes hereditary trusteeship. The Court held that the legislature within its competence may amend the law, and the abolition of hereditary trusteeship is a permissible law under Article 25(2) of the Constitution. The Court found that hereditary trusteeship inherently led to mismanagement or misappropriation of property, and its abolition aimed to ensure proper and efficient management and governance of the institutions. Therefore, Section 16 was not declared unconstitutional.3. Constitutionality of Section 17:Section 17 provides the procedure for appointing trustees and their term. The Court held that the scheme for appointment of trustees and the constitution of the board of trustees is to ensure efficient and proper administration and management. The Court suggested that the board of trustees should be headed by the founder or a member of his family to generate greater responsibility and interest in its management. Subject to this rider, the validity of Section 17 was upheld.4. Constitutionality of Section 29(5):Section 29(5) deals with the appointment and duties of Executive Officers. The Court found that the legislative scheme aimed to ensure efficiency and proper management in a secular manner. The Court upheld the validity of Section 29(5), subject to the condition that the board of trustees should be headed by the founder or a member of his family to ensure proper and efficient management.5. Constitutionality of Section 144:Section 144 abolishes shares in Hundi and other rusums. The Court held that the object of the Act is to prevent misuse of the trust for personal benefit, founded on the report of the Challa Kondaiah Commission. The legislative judgment was respected, and Section 144 was not declared unconstitutional in relation to its application to charitable and religious institutions and endowments.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sections 15, 16, 17, 29(5), and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, subject to the rider that the board of trustees should be headed by the founder or a member of his family for Sections 17 and 29(5). The writ petitions and transfer cases were disposed of accordingly without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
