<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (4) TMI 568 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171421</link>
    <description>The Guruvayoor Devaswom Act&#039;s nomination scheme was construed as not requiring the nominating Ministers themselves to be believers in God or temple worship, because the statute did not impose that limitation and reading it in would make the provision unworkable. The Court also treated temple administration as a secular matter capable of statutory regulation, while preserving religious, ritual and spiritual functions from interference. Since the Act protected the denominational character of the managing body and no pre-existing constitutional right to control administration through an electoral college or similar arrangement was shown, Section 4 was upheld as consistent with Articles 25 and 26.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 568 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171421</link>
      <description>The Guruvayoor Devaswom Act&#039;s nomination scheme was construed as not requiring the nominating Ministers themselves to be believers in God or temple worship, because the statute did not impose that limitation and reading it in would make the provision unworkable. The Court also treated temple administration as a secular matter capable of statutory regulation, while preserving religious, ritual and spiritual functions from interference. Since the Act protected the denominational character of the managing body and no pre-existing constitutional right to control administration through an electoral college or similar arrangement was shown, Section 4 was upheld as consistent with Articles 25 and 26.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>