Scheme-making for religious institutions upheld where judicial inquiry and High Court appeal provide safeguards against unreasonable restriction.

The amended scheme-making process for religious institutions was upheld because it required a judicial-service Commissioner, a preliminary inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner, procedure broadly aligned with the Code of Civil Procedure, and a direct appeal to the High Court. These safeguards converted the process into a judicially supervised determination, and the shorter limitation period and absence of an automatic stay did not make the restriction on the Mathadipathi's rights unreasonable. Section 79-A was also upheld because it validly deemed earlier schemes to have been framed under the amended Act, while extending the new statutory safeguards, including appeal to the High Court. The validating fiction was treated as constitutionally competent and not as an impermissible bar on the article 32 remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisions governing the framing of schemes for religious institutions, namely the inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner, the binding effect of the Commissioner's order, and the direct appeal to the High Court, imposed an unconstitutional and unreasonable restriction on the rights of the Mathadipathi. (ii) Whether section 79-A, which validated schemes framed during the specified period by deeming them to have been settled under the amended Act and by providing an appeal to the High Court, was constitutionally valid.

Issue (i): Whether the provisions governing the framing of schemes for religious institutions, namely the inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner, the binding effect of the Commissioner's order, and the direct appeal to the High Court, imposed an unconstitutional and unreasonable restriction on the rights of the Mathadipathi.

Analysis: The scheme-making process under the amended Act differed materially from the earlier regime that had been struck down. The Commissioner was required to be a member of the judicial service, the Assistant Commissioner was to make a preliminary inquiry, the Commissioner's inquiry had to follow the manner prescribed and, so far as may be, the Code of Civil Procedure, and an appeal lay directly to the High Court. These features converted the process into a judicial inquiry with appellate supervision rather than an executive determination immune from correction. The shorter limitation period and the absence of a stay during appeal did not render the scheme-making power unreasonable, since appellate relief and ancillary support could still be effectively secured.

Conclusion: The provisions were not unconstitutional and did not amount to an unreasonable restriction on the rights of the Mathadipathi.

Issue (ii): Whether section 79-A, which validated schemes framed during the specified period by deeming them to have been settled under the amended Act and by providing an appeal to the High Court, was constitutionally valid.

Analysis: Section 79-A did not seek to declare valid what had already been held unconstitutional under the old law. Instead, it re-enacted the earlier schemes by a legislative fiction, treating them as schemes framed under the amended Act and subjecting them to the safeguards of the new statutory regime, including appeal to the High Court. Such a validating provision was within legislative competence and did not trench upon the constitutional remedy under article 32. The Court also found that the fiction did not cause any substantial prejudice, because the substantial safeguard under the new law was the appeal to the High Court, which section 79-A expressly supplied.

Conclusion: Section 79-A was constitutionally valid and effectively cured the defect in the earlier schemes.

Final Conclusion: The challenged provisions of the amended Act were upheld, the validating provision survived constitutional scrutiny, and all the petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A scheme framed for a religious institution by a judicial officer after a procedure approximating a civil trial, with a direct appeal to the High Court, is not an unreasonable restriction on the head of the institution's property rights; and a legislature may validly cure prior invalidity by deeming earlier schemes to have been framed under the amended law and by affording the safeguards of that law.

---