Broad construction of legislative competence upheld for regulation of religious endowments, with no invalidity under property-discrimination rule.

A broad construction was given to entry 34 of List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935: the terms "charities," "charitable institutions" and "charitable endowments" were treated as expansive, and "religious endowments" was not read as limiting the opening words. On that reading, the Provincial Legislature had competence to enact legislation regulating religious institutions and related endowments. Section 298 was also held not to invalidate the measure, because the law did not prohibit holding property solely on grounds of religion and was concerned with temple worship rights within the Province. The impugned Act was therefore upheld as valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether entry 34 of List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 empowered the Provincial Legislature to enact legislation regulating religious institutions and related endowments; (ii) whether section 298 of the Government of India Act, 1935 invalidated the impugned legislation.

Issue (i): whether entry 34 of List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 empowered the Provincial Legislature to enact legislation regulating religious institutions and related endowments

Analysis: The entry was construed as using the word "charities" in a broad and generic sense. The additional expressions "charitable institutions" and "charitable endowments" were treated as illustrative rather than restrictive, and the reference to "religious endowments" was held not to cut down the opening general words. The legislative scheme of the Act of 1935, including the presence of a separate provision for omitted subjects, supported a construction that preferred efficacy of legislative power where the text reasonably permitted it.

Conclusion: The Provincial Legislature had power under entry 34 to enact the impugned law, and the legislation was within competence.

Issue (ii): whether section 298 of the Government of India Act, 1935 invalidated the impugned legislation

Analysis: The challenged law did not amount to a prohibition of holding property on the ground only of religion. The affected rights were rights of worship in a temple within the Province, and the provision relied upon did not extend to invalidate legislation of this nature. The broader construction suggested for the section was rejected.

Conclusion: Section 298 did not render the legislation invalid.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Act was upheld as validly enacted, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a legislative entry uses a broad generic expression, accompanying words may be read as illustrative rather than limiting if the statutory context supports a wide construction; an enactment within that competence is not invalid merely because it incidentally affects temple-related rights, unless the Constitution expressly prohibits such legislation.

---