1954 (3) TMI 75 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 Validity

The Supreme Court upheld the legislative competency of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939, affirming the validity of the Act's provisions ... - Issues Involved:1. Legislative Competency of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939.2. Validity of Contribution Levied under Section 49.3. Invasion of Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 27 of the Constitution.4. Validity of Specific Provisions of the Act: Sections 11, 14, 28, 38, 39, 46, 47, and 49.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legislative Competency of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939:The Act was challenged on the grounds that it was not covered by Entry 34 of List II in Schedule VII of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Court found that the subject matter of the Act fell within the legislative competence of the Orissa Legislature, as it pertained to the administration and governance of Hindu religious endowments. The District Judge of Cuttack and the High Court of Orissa had both upheld the validity of the Act, and this position was affirmed by the Supreme Court.2. Validity of Contribution Levied under Section 49:The contribution levied under Section 49 was challenged as being a tax rather than a fee, which would be beyond the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature. The Court distinguished between a tax and a fee, stating that a fee is levied for specific services rendered and is not merged into the general revenue of the State. The Court concluded that the contribution under Section 49 was a fee, as it was specifically appropriated for the administration of religious institutions and not for general public purposes. Therefore, it was within the competence of the Provincial Legislature. The Court also held that this imposition was not prohibited by Article 27 of the Constitution, as it was aimed at the secular administration of religious institutions and not the promotion of any particular religion.3. Invasion of Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 27 of the Constitution:The petitioners argued that certain provisions of the Act violated their fundamental rights. The Court referred to its previous judgment in the Madras appeal, which dealt with similar issues concerning the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The Court reiterated that the provisions of the Orissa Act did not infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 27 of the Constitution.4. Validity of Specific Provisions of the Act:- Section 11: This section was challenged for vesting arbitrary power in the Commissioner. The Court held that the powers were not arbitrary as they were meant to ensure proper maintenance and administration of Maths and temples.- Section 14: The duties imposed on trustees were deemed reasonable and did not interfere with any fundamental rights.- Section 28: This section required trustees to obey lawful orders from the Commissioner, which the Court found reasonable.- Sections 38 and 39: These sections were invalidated as they allowed the Commissioner to frame schemes without judicial intervention, which was deemed an unreasonable restriction on the property rights of the religious institutions' superiors.- Section 46: The proviso to this section was found to be an unreasonable restriction on the discretion of trustees in spending surplus income.- Section 47: Although objections were raised, the provision was upheld as it allowed for judicial intervention in case of disputes.- Section 49: As discussed, this section was upheld as a legitimate fee and not a tax.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that Sections 38, 39, and the proviso to Section 46 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939, were invalid. A writ of mandamus was issued restraining the enforcement of these sections against the petitioners. The other provisions of the Act were upheld, and no separate order was necessary for Case No. 1 of 1950, which stood dismissed. No order as to costs was made either in the petition or in the appeal.