https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174093 Article 26 protects only denominational rights that continued to subsist at the commencement of the Constitution; a right of temple management validly vested in the State before 26 January 1950 was not revived, so the respondents had no enforceable constitutional claim to reclaim management. Provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act regulating registration, accounts, audit, investment and court-supervised administration of public trust property were treated as permissible regulatory measures under Article 26(d), not interference with religion. The registration levy was upheld as a fee, not a tax, because it was linked to the cost of the regulatory services rendered. The impugned provisions were therefore sustained and the High Court's directions were set aside. en-us Fri, 14 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:23:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174093 Article 26 protects only denominational rights that continued to subsist at the commencement of the Constitution; a right of temple management validly vested in the State before 26 January 1950 was not revived, so the respondents had no enforceable constitutional claim to reclaim management. Provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act regulating registration, accounts, audit, investment and court-supervised administration of public trust property were treated as permissible regulatory measures under Article 26(d), not interference with religion. The registration levy was upheld as a fee, not a tax, because it was linked to the cost of the regulatory services rendered. The impugned provisions were therefore sustained and the High Court's directions were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174093