1953 (9) TMI 33 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds constitutionality of Act, strikes down provisions affecting trustees' rights under Article 19(1)(f)

Kidangazhi Manakkal Narayanan Nambudiripad and Ors. Versus State of Madras and Ors.

The court upheld the constitutionality of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951, ruling that it does not constitute ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951.2. Whether the Act is an unconstitutional interference by the State in matters of religion.3. Whether the provisions of the schemes framed under the Act deprive hereditary trustees of their rights and are repugnant to Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.4. Whether the Act is discriminatory and repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951:The judgment examines the constitutional validity of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951. The Act aims 'to provide for the better administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Madras.' It establishes a hierarchy of officers, including the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, and Area Committees, who are entrusted with the administration of the endowments.2. Unconstitutional Interference by the State in Matters of Religion:The petitioners contended that the Act is void as it vests the administration of religious endowments in a department of the State, which they argued is an unconstitutional interference by the State in religious matters. The court examined the separation of Church and State under the American Constitution and compared it with the Indian Constitution. The court noted that while Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution guarantee freedom of religion, there is no equivalent to the 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment of the American Constitution. The court concluded that the Indian Constitution does not adopt the principle of a complete separation between Church and State and allows for State involvement in the administration of religious endowments.The court further analyzed Article 27, which prohibits the use of tax revenues for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion, and Article 282, which allows the State to make grants for public purposes. The court concluded that the administration of religious endowments is a public purpose and that the Act does not violate Article 282.3. Deprivation of Rights of Hereditary Trustees and Repugnance to Article 19(1)(f):The petitioners argued that the schemes framed under the Act deprived hereditary trustees of their rights and were repugnant to Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. The court examined the nature of hereditary trusteeship and concluded that it is in the nature of property. The court held that the provisions in the schemes that encroach upon the rights of hereditary trustees are void under Article 19(1)(f).4. Discrimination and Repugnance to Article 14:The petitioners contended that the Act is discriminatory and repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, as it singles out Hindu Religious Endowments for special treatment. The court referred to a previous judgment (AIR 1952 Mad 613) which had rejected this contention. The court agreed with the views expressed in that judgment and overruled this contention.Conclusion:The court held that the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951 is not void on the ground that it is an unconstitutional interference by the State in matters of religion. However, the court also held that the provisions in the schemes that encroach upon the rights of hereditary trustees are void under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The petitions were posted for further hearing on the merits.