<?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>1996 (1) TMI 447 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183995</link>
    <description>The statutory scheme governing Hindu charitable and religious institutions treats administration and management as secular regulation, while leaving faith, worship and essential religious practices untouched. Hereditary trusteeship was treated as a matter of succession in office rather than an essential religious practice, so the legislature could replace it with a board-based appointment system under Sections 15 and 16. Sections 17 and 29(5) were also sustained as administrative safeguards, including regard to the founder&#039;s wishes and family representation where possible, with the Executive Officer&#039;s role confined to supervision. Section 144, abolishing traditional shares and emoluments, was upheld as a reform measure aimed at preserving institutional resources. The scheme was found consistent with Articles 14, 15(1), 25 and 26.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 May 2017 15:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 447 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183995</link>
      <description>The statutory scheme governing Hindu charitable and religious institutions treats administration and management as secular regulation, while leaving faith, worship and essential religious practices untouched. Hereditary trusteeship was treated as a matter of succession in office rather than an essential religious practice, so the legislature could replace it with a board-based appointment system under Sections 15 and 16. Sections 17 and 29(5) were also sustained as administrative safeguards, including regard to the founder&#039;s wishes and family representation where possible, with the Executive Officer&#039;s role confined to supervision. Section 144, abolishing traditional shares and emoluments, was upheld as a reform measure aimed at preserving institutional resources. The scheme was found consistent with Articles 14, 15(1), 25 and 26.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>