# ' . ' PANNALAL BANSILAL PITTI AND ORS. ETC v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1996] 1 S.C.R. 603
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-01-17
- **Case number:** Writ Petition (C} No. 713 of 1987
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, B.L. Hansaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/pannalal-bansilal-pitti-and-ors-etc-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-13880
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Relirjous Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987:
A
B
Section 15-Hindu Charitable or Relirjous Institutions-Appointment C
of Board of Trustee-Scheme for-Held seeks to achieve a public purpose-Section 15 held not unconstitutional.
Section 16-Right to hereditary Trusteeshi~Prospective abolition
of-Heid not violative of Article 25( 1) of the Constitution.
Sections 17 and 29(5)--Trustees-Procedure for making appointment D
of-Held Constitutional subject to the requirement that Board of Trustees
should be headed either by the founder or member of a family.
Sectidn 14.f-Abolition of shares of trustees in Hundi and other
Rusums-Held not unconstitutional.
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Articles 14 and 15-Relirjous and charitable endowments-Law
governing only Hindu Institutions-Leaving out relirjous institutions and
endowments of other relirjons-Held not discriminatory-Held uniform law
in this regard though highly desirable may be counter productive of unity and
integrity.
Articles 25 and 26-Right to relirjon-Freedorn to manage relirjous
affairs-Right to profess, practice and propagate relirjon-Scope and extent
of
Interpretation of Statutes .
Statute-Provisions-Constitutionality of-Doctrine of reading
down-Applicability of
Words & Phrases-Charity-Meaning of
603
E
F
G
H
A
B
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
The petitioners are hereditary trustees of some of the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments. ln these petitions
they have challenged the Constitutional validity of Sections 15, 16, 17, 29
(5) and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religions
Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. On their behalf it was contended
that (i) Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution guarantee freedom t~
manage religious affairs and right to freely profess, practise and propagate
the religion to all citizens alike. A law of general application in respect of
religious institutions should be made and singling out the religious institutions or endowments established and maintained by Hindus is an invidious
discrimination violating Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution; (ii) it is
C not open to the State to restrict or prohibit, under the guise of its secular
power, "the administration of the religions or charitable institutions or
endowments, contrary to what the followers of the religion believe to be
their religious duty; (iii) the State cannot directly undertake to expend
public money for patronising any particular religion. The legislature canD not make law to appoint its officers or servants to manage the religious
institutions or endowments; (iv) without factual foundation of any mismanagement or misutilisation of the funds of Hindu religious and
charitable institutions or endowments abolition of the trusteeship is arbitrary, unjust and unfair violating Article 14 of the Constitution; and (v)
when Section 18 of the Act recognises and gives right to representation to
E a member of the family in the board of trustees, abolitiQn of hereditary
trusteeship under Section 16 is unconstitutional.
Disposing of the petitions, this Court
F
HELD : 1. It cannot be said that either Section 15 or Section 16 of
the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religions Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 is ultra vires the Constitution. [626-F]
2. The object of the Act is to consolidate and amend the law relating
to the administration and governance of charitable and Hindu religious
G institutions and endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh as the title of
the Act itself indicates. It applies to all public charitable institutions and
endowments, whether registered or not, in accordance with the provisions
of the Act other than wakfs governed under the Wakfs Act, 1954. lt also
applies to all Hindu Public religious institutions and endowments whether
H registered or not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. [617-B-C]
t
'
P.B. PITI1 v. STATE
605
3. Words are the skin of the language. The langua

## Text

_Characters 0–39,956 of 66,815. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39956 for what follows._

'
. '
PANNALAL BANSILAL PITT! AND ORS. ETC.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
JANUARY 17, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Relirjous Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987:
A
B
Section 15-Hindu Charitable or Relirjous Institutions-Appointment C
of Board of Trustee-Scheme for-Held seeks to achieve a public purpose-Section 15 held not unconstitutional.
Section 16-Right to hereditary Trusteeshi~Prospective abolition
of-Heid not violative of Article 25( 1) of the Constitution.
Sections 17 and 29(5)--Trustees-Procedure for making appointment D
of-Held Constitutional subject to the requirement that Board of Trustees
should be headed either by the founder or member of a family.
Sectidn 14.f-Abolition of shares of trustees in Hundi and other
Rusums-Held not unconstitutional.
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Articles 14 and 15-Relirjous and charitable endowments-Law
governing only Hindu Institutions-Leaving out relirjous institutions and
endowments of other relirjons-Held not discriminatory-Held uniform law
in this regard though highly desirable may be counter productive of unity and
integrity.
Articles 25 and 26-Right to relirjon-Freedorn to manage relirjous
affairs-Right to profess, practice and propagate relirjon-Scope and extent
of
Interpretation of Statutes .
Statute-Provisions-Constitutionality of-Doctrine of reading
down-Applicability of
Words & Phrases-Charity-Meaning of
603
E
F
G
H
A
B
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
The petitioners are hereditary trustees of some of the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments. ln these petitions
they have challenged the Constitutional validity of Sections 15, 16, 17, 29
(5) and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religions
Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. On their behalf it was contended
that (i) Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution guarantee freedom t~
manage religious affairs and right to freely profess, practise and propagate
the religion to all citizens alike. A law of general application in respect of
religious institutions should be made and singling out the religious institutions or endowments established and maintained by Hindus is an invidious
discrimination violating Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution; (ii) it is
C not open to the State to restrict or prohibit, under the guise of its secular
power, "the administration of the religions or charitable institutions or
endowments, contrary to what the followers of the religion believe to be
their religious duty; (iii) the State cannot directly undertake to expend
public money for patronising any particular religion. The legislature canD not make law to appoint its officers or servants to manage the religious
institutions or endowments; (iv) without factual foundation of any mismanagement or misutilisation of the funds of Hindu religious and
charitable institutions or endowments abolition of the trusteeship is arbitrary, unjust and unfair violating Article 14 of the Constitution; and (v)
when Section 18 of the Act recognises and gives right to representation to
E a member of the family in the board of trustees, abolitiQn of hereditary
trusteeship under Section 16 is unconstitutional.
Disposing of the petitions, this Court
F
HELD : 1. It cannot be said that either Section 15 or Section 16 of
the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religions Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 is ultra vires the Constitution. [626-F]
2. The object of the Act is to consolidate and amend the law relating
to the administration and governance of charitable and Hindu religious
G institutions and endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh as the title of
the Act itself indicates. It applies to all public charitable institutions and
endowments, whether registered or not, in accordance with the provisions
of the Act other than wakfs governed under the Wakfs Act, 1954. lt also
applies to all Hindu Public religious institutions and endowments whether
H registered or not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. [617-B-C]
t
'
P.B. PITI1 v. STATE
605
3. Words are the skin of the language. The language opens up the A
bey of the maker's mind. The Legislature gives its own meaning and
interpretation of the law. It does so employing appropriate phegeology to
attain the object of legislative policy which it seeks to achieve. (624-B-C]
4. Hindu Piety found expression in establishing temples, creation of
endowments or specific endowments, by gifts to idols and images consecrated and installed in temples and to religious institutions of every
kind. A Hindu who has founded a religious or charitable institution or
endowment has a fundamental right to administer it in accordance with
B
law; and so, the law must leave the right of administration to the religious
denomination or general body itself, subject to the restrictions and regulaC
!ions as the law might chose to impose. (622-D, FJ
5. The right to establish a religious institution or endowment is a
part of religious belief or faith, but its administration is a secular part
which would be regulated by law appropriately made by the legislature.
The regulation is only in respect of the administration of the secular part D
of the religious institution or endowment, and not of beliefs, tenants,
usages and practices, which are integral part of that religious belief or
faith. (623-F]
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Madras v. Sri E
Lakshmindra Thinha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Matt, (1954] S.C.R. 1005 and
Ratilal Panchand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay & Ors., (1954] SCR 1055,
referred to.
6. It is true that section 16 of the Act abolishes the hereditary right
in trusteeship but not the right to trusteeship itself. Section 18 itself F
recognises the right to management of a religious or charitable institution
or endowment or specific endowment by one of the members belonging to
the family of the founder as trustee; but, ·of course, as a member of the
board of non-hereditary trustees. Section 16 with a non obstante clause
abolishes the hereditary right in trusteeship of a charitable and Hindu G
religions institutions or endowments. It is settled law that the legislature
within its competence, may amend the· law. The language in Section 16
seeks to alter the pre-existing operation of the law. The alteration in
language may be the result of many factors, It is settled legislative device
to employ non obstante clause to suitably alter the pre-existing law consistent with the legislative policy under the new Act to provide the remedy for H
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1996] 1 S.C.R.
A the mischief the legislature felt most acute. [623-G-H, 624-A, DJ
B
7. Hereditary principle being inconsistent with Article 15(1), the legislature thought it fit to abolish the same. Moreover, by reason of hereditary
nature of-succession to trusteeship or mutawalli etc. inherently visited with
mismanagement or misappropriation of the property of the charitable or
Hindu religious institutions or l!'ndowments, the object of the endowment
etc. thereby getting defeated. With a view to remedy the same and to effectuate proper and efficient management and governance of charitable and
Hindu religious institutions and endowments, the Act was enacted. Instead
of management by a single person Chapter III introduced in Sections 15, 17,
C 18 and 19 as a composite scheme prescribing disqualifications and
qualifications for trusteeship, procedure for appointment of trustees and
appointment and constitution of the board of trustees so as to have collective proper and efficient administration and governance of the institution
and endowment. The abolition of the right to hereditary trusteeship, therefore, cannot be declared to be unconstitutional. [624-H, 625-A-C)
D
8. The scheme for appointment of the trustees and constitution of
the board of trnstees is to effectuate the legislative object of efficient and
proper administration and management of charitable and Hindu religious
institutions and endowments. The Act entrusted the collective responE sibility to the board of trustees appointed under Section 15. The scheme
of appointment of the trustees and appointment and constitution of the
Board of the trustees being an integral part and having evolved policy to
entrust collective responsibility of management and administration of
charitable and religious institution or endowment instead of entrusting
F
such responsibility to a single individual, Section 15 was brought on
statute to effectuate the said policy. The policy involved cannot be faulted
nor can it be assailed as unconstitutional when it seeks to achieve a public
purpose, viz., secular management of the charitable or religious institutions or endowments to effectuate efficient and proper management and
governance of the said institutions. Accordingly, the abolition of the
G hereditary right in trusteeship is unexceptionable, it being a part of due
administration, which is a secular activity. Being a permissible law under
Article 25(2), it is not violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
[625-E-F, 626-C-F]
9. The right to establish a religions and charitable institution is a
H part of religious belief or faith and, thongh law made under clause (2) of
'
P.B. PITII v. STATE
607
Article 25 may impose restrictions on the exercise of that right, the right A
to administer and maintain such institution cannot altogether be taken
away and vested in other party; more particularly, in the officers of a
secular Government. The administration of religious institution or endowment or specific endowment being a secular activity, it is not an essential
part of religion and, therefore, the legislature is competent to enact law,
B
as in Part III of the Act, regulating the administration and governance of
the religious or charitable institutions or endowment. They are not part of
religious practices or customs. The State does not directly undertake their
administration and expend any public money for maintenance and governance thereof. Law regulates appropriately for efficient management or
administration or governance of charitable and Hindu religious instituC
tions or endowments or specific endowments, through its officers or officers appointed under the Act. [627-B-EJ
10. With a view to effectuate the object of the religious or charitable
institution or endowment or specific endowment and to encourage estab- D
lishment of such institutions in future, making the founder or in his absence
a member of his family to be a chairperson and to accord him major say in
the management and governance would be salutory and effective. The
'
founder or a member of his family would, thereby, enable to effectuate the
proper, efficient and effective management and governance of charitable or
religious institution or endowment or specific endowment thereof in future. E
It would add incentive to establish similar institutions. [628-E-F]
11. It would be inexpedient and incorrect to think that all laws have
to be made uniformly applicable to all people in one go. The mischief or
defect which is most acute can be remedied by process of law at stages. In F
a pluralist society like India in which people have faith in their respective
religions, beliefs or tenents propounded by different religions or their
off-shoots, the founding fathers, while making the Constitution, were con·
fronted with problems to unify and integrate people of India professing
different religious faiths, born in different castes, sex or sub-sections in G
the society speaking different languages and dialects in different religions
and provided secular Constitution to integrate all sections of the society
as a united Bharat. The Directive Principles of the Constitution themselves
visualise diversity and attempt to foster uniformity among people of
different faiths. A uniform law, though is highly desirable, enactment
thereof in one go perhaps may be counter-productive to unity and integrity H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A of the nation. In a democracy governed by rule of law, gradual progressive
change and order should be brought about. Making law or amendment to
a law is a slow process and the legislature attempts to remedy where the
need is felt most acute. [619-D, A-CJ
B
12. Reading down the provisions of an Act is a settled principle of
interpretation so as to sustain their constitutionality, as well as for effectuation of the purpose of the statute. The statutory provisions contained
in Sections 17 and 29(5) are grounded on the findings of the report of
Challa Kondaiah Commission, which indicated mismanagement and
misutilisation of funds of charitable and Hindu religious institutions and
C endowments in a big way. This is, however, a general finding and all the
charitable and religious institutions may not be painted with the same
brush. There is no doubt that there would be charitable or religious
institutions in the State which are neither mismanaged nor there is
misutilisation of funds. Even so, if the legislature acted on the general
findings recorded by the Commission, due weightage has to be given to the
D same. The view that the Board. of trustees should be headed either by the
founder or a member of his family, would go a long way in seeing the
fulfilment of the wishes and desires of the founder. Sections 17 and 29(5) ,
cannot, therefore, be faulted. Whatever rigour these sections have, would
duly get softened by the requirement of the board being headed by the
E founder or any of his family members, as the case may be. Subject to this
rider, these two sections are constitutionally valid. [628-G-H, 629-A-D]
F
G
13. Section 144 is not unconstitutional in relation to its application to
charitable and religious institutions and endowments. The object of the Act
is to prevent misuse of the trust for personal benefit. It is founded on the
report of the Kondaiah Commission. It is a matter oflegislativewisdom and
policy. It is not the contention that the legislature has no competence to
abolish the system of payment. It is a legislative judgment reflective of the
will of the sovereign people. The Court would give respect and primacy to
the legislative judgment, rather than to judicial conclusion. [629-F, D-E]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C} No. 713 of
1987 Etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
H
H.S. Gururaja Rao, M.N. Krishnamani, Ms. Shayamala Pappu, K.
y
-.l
P.B. P!Tflv. STATE[K RAMASWAMY,J.]
609
Parasaran, R. Venugopal Reddy, P.P. Rao, A.K. Ganguli, Dr. V. A
Gaurishanker, A. Raghuvir, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Mohan
Parasaran, Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, M.R. Krishnamurti, V. Balachandran,
P.N. Ramalingam, A.D.N. Rao, Pramod Sharma, T.V. Ratnam, Subodh
Markandeya, Ajay Singh, Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, Sunil Kumar Jain for
Jain Hansaria & Co., G. Prabhakar, B. Kanta Rao, S. Rajappa Mrs. H.
Wahi, R. Ashok, B. Parthasarathi, K. Rajendra Chowdhary, Y. Prabhakara
Rao, R.C. Pathak, M. Doriraj V. Balaji, A.T.M. Sampath, A. Subba Rao,
A. Raghunath, K. Swami, Ms. Thilegavathy, R.D.B. Raju N. Ganpathy, K.
Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair Ranganadham, C. Balasubramaniam,
Adinarayana Raju T.V.S.N. Chari (NP), P.K. Pillai, T.V. Ratnam, G.
Prabhakar, G. Venkatesh Rao and Ms. Sadhana Ramachandran, for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
c
K. RAMASWAMY, J. This bunch of writ petitions and transfer cases D
is at the behest of hereditary trustees of Hindu Religious and Charitable
Institutions and Endowments challenging the constitutionality of Sections
15, 16, 17, 29(5) and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) (For
short,
11the Act
11).
The facts in writ petition No. 713/87 are sufficient for deciding the
controversy. The first petitioner is a founder of several charitable and
religious institutions in Hyderabad and Secunderabad of Andhra Pradesh.
He is a hereditary trustee of a premier institution known as Raja Bahadur
E
Sir Bansilal Motilal Charitable Trust founded by his father donating Rs.
F
5,00,000 in 1933. It also established Sri Ranganath Mandir, Sri Jagannath
Mandir. Sri Narsingh Mandir, Sri Lakshman Maharaj, Raja Bahadur Sir
Bansilal Hospital Trust and Shri Sanskrit Sahitya Nidhi Trust in
Hyderabad. Hari Prasad Badruka, the 3rd petitioner's family founded Shri
Venkatesh Goraksha Trust with a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 and donated 568
acres of land in Dabirpura and Konaipalle villages. They also claimed to G
have purchased 58.35 acres in Hakimpet for grazing the cows. Raja of
Jataprolu in Mahaboobnagar District founded Madana Gopala Swamy and
other temples at Jataprolu village; Shri Narsimha Swamy and Shri Ratna
Lakshmi Devi temples at Singapatnam; and Shri Amareshwara Swamy
temple at Kollapuram. They endowed 300 acres of seri lands for perforH
610
SUPREME COURT REP OR TS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
A mance of Nitya Nivedhya Deeparadhana. The first petitioner is a hereditary
trustee and is entitled to nominate other trustees for proper manage~ent.
He is also a Mutawalli, who is terms of the deed of trust, shall deduct 1/3rd
of the net income as his remuneration after excluding the management and
establishment expenses.
B
It is the case of all the petitioners that they have been properly and
efficiently maintaining the aforestated trusts and charitable or religious
institutions without any complaint. The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, 1966 (17of1966) for short,
'the Predecessor Act of 1966) recognised their hereditary right and made
C them Chairman of the respective trusts, in the event of constituting a board
of trustees with non-hereditary trustees. The religious institutions and
endowments or charitable institutions were established on charity which
every Hindu, wishes to perform. Establishment of charitable and religious
institutions or endowments is a part of freedom of conscience and right to
D freely profess, practise and propagate Hindu religion. As its integral fact
they have right to maintain the institutions founded by them. The Act, while
purporting to regulate administration and governance of Hindu charitable
and religious institutions or endowment grossly violates the constitutional
rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Several learned senior
E
F
counsels S/Shri H.S. Gurujarao, AK. Ganguli, R. Venugopala Reddy, M.N.
Krishnamani along with S/Shri A. Sobba Rao and Sampath, argued in
support of the contentions of the petitioners. They also have filed written
submissions. Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel, resisted the contentions on behalf of the State and also submitted his written arguments.
The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel. is that
Articles 25 and 26 guarantee freedom to manage religious affairs and right
to freely profess, practise and propagate the religion to all citizens alike.
Hindu constitute majority population and Hindu religion is the major
religion in the country, Equally Muslim. Christian and Parsee citizens are
G entitled to the similar constitutional rights under Articles 25 and 26.
Without touching the administration and governance of charitable or
religious institutions or endowments founded or maintained by Muslims,
Christians or Parsecs making law regulating the administration of Hindu
religious institutions and above endowments offends Articles 14 and 15(1)
H of the Constitution. It is also contended that when a denomination, which
y'
)
..
'
P.B.PITI!v. STATE[K. RAMASWAMY,J.]
611
is a part of the major religion is protected by Article 26, the major religions A
themselves as genus are entitled to the protection of Article 26. Institutions
belonging to them cannot, therefore, be regulated under the law offending
their right to religious practice. By operation of clause (2) of Article 25,
law of general application in respect of religious institutions should be
made and singling out the religious institutions or endowments established
B
and maintained by H_indus is an invidious discrimination violating Article
14. The regulation of administration and governance of the religious institutions or endowments would amount to restriction on the religious
practices or freedom of religion, since establishment, maintenance and
administration of the religious institutions and endowments are intertwined
with the very religious faith itself, it is impermissible for an outside agency
or the party like the State to determine as to which activity is essential part
c
of religion and which part is not. It would not, therefore, be open to the
State to restrict or prohibit, under the guise of its secular power, the
administration of the religious or charitable institutions or endowments,
contrary to what the followers of the religion believe to be the religious D
duty. The administration of religious or charitable institution and endowments as part of the religious practice, perceived and rigorously followed
by Hindus cannot, therefore, be divested by legislation.
The further contention in this regard is that the State cannot directly
undertake to expend pnblic money for patronising any particular religion.
Under the garb of regulating administration and maintenance of religious
or charitable institutions and endowments, as a secular State, the legislature cannot make law to appoint its officers or servants to manage the
religious institutions or endowments. Abolition of hereditary trusteeship
totally deprives the right to practise charity or to render charitable service
or to establish religious institutions as a part of religious charitable disposition or religious practice, which offends right to religious practice guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It is further contended
E
F
that without factual foundation of any mismanagement or misultilisation of
the funds of Hindu religious and charitable institutions or endowments, G
abolition of the trusteeship is arbitrary, unjust and unfair violating Article
14 of the Constitution.
Shri Venugopala Reddy contended that if any hereditary trustee has
mismanaged or misutilised the funds of the religious institutions or endowH
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] l S.C.R.
A men!, he could be removed by following the procedure prescribed under
the Predecessor Act of 1966 and it being successfully working, the
hereditary right itself cannot be divested under the Act on that premise.
Abolition of hereditary trusteeship and divesting him of the right to maintain and administer the religious institution or endowment is not a remedy
B
to cure the defect, if any, as pointed out by Justice Challa Kondaiah
Commission. In each case, the Endowments Department has to conduct a
survey, on its finding of any mismanagement or misutilisation and appropriate, individual remedial action would be taken, but on that premise,
the right of hereditary trusteeship cannot be abolished by the Act. He also
C contended that when Section 18 of the Act recognises and gives right to
representation to a member of the family in the board of trustees, abolition
of hereditary trusteeship under Section 16 is unconstitutional. He urged
that when right of a representation to a member from the family of the
founder of the trust or religious institution or endowment is recognised
under Section 18, the rule of primogeniture envisaged in the trust, its
D abolition is unconstitutional. Further, the statutory abolition would dry up
the zeal to establish a religious or charitable institution or endowment. The
pious wish or charitable disposition to establish a religious institution or
endowment is a desire to perpetuate the memory of the founder, who was
inspired with religious piety or charitable disposition. The members of his
E family are entitled to be members of the trust, and the right to chairmanship of the board ensures that the work would be carried out as set out in
the deed of endowment.
Shri Krishanamani further contended that when the founder trustee
F or the hereditary trustee of the religious or charitable institution or endowment renders free services in an honorary capacity, the executive officer
and the non-hereditary trustees, receive salary or emoluments from the
endowment depleting its source and denuding its very source of income to
do better or efficient service to the followers or for the religious charitable
purpose .. The trustee appointed by the donor's family would work with
G dedication which would be wanting in the officers or non-hereditary trustees, since the latter do not have any personal interest in the efficient or
proper management of the institution or the endowment. Denial of that
right to do service to the religious institution or endowment to the founder
or the members of the family is, therefore, arbitrary, unfair and unjust
H offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
y
. .,.
.. t
-J
'
P.B. PITTiv. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY.J.]
613
Shri P.P. Rao, the learned counsel for the State, resisted these
contentions. According to him, the Challa Kondaiah Commission after
exhaustive survey had pointed out diverse defects in the administration and
management of Hindu charitable and religious institutions or endowments
or specific endowments and made several recommendations, one of which
relates to abolition of hereditary trusteeship as part of the scheme. The
report does indicate the mismanagement and misultilisation of the funds
of religious institutions or endowments or the same used as a source to
draw money for the family management of the founder. The administration
and maintenance of the religious or charitable institutions or endowments
are secular activities, though religious practices are not, and the latter have
A
B
c
not been interfered with by the Act. On the other hand, they are specifically
protected and the Act has directed the officers to follow the established
religious practices and sampradayams and to adhere to the same in the
management. Executive officers appointed under the Act are also Hindus
having faith and dedication to the proper and efficient management of the
institutions and endowments. Hereditary trustee, by its very nature, is not D
an insurance for efficient and proper management. With a view to remedy
the defects pointed in Challa Kondaiah Commission, the legislature
stepped in, abolished the hereditary trusteeship, made provision for the
payment of emoluments to them and regulated the same in Chapter Ill, for
the proper and efficient management of the religious institutions and
endowments. The legislative scheme is only to ensure efficiency and proper
management in. a secular manner and, therefore, the provisions are not in
violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. He also pointed out that
there is no prohibition to make the law applicable to Hindu religious
institutions and endowments, without bringing religious or charitable institutions or endowments established by persons belonging to other
religions. It could be done in a phased manner, wherever.evils are pointed
E
F
out. The statutory intervention in that behalf would be inevitable and
accordingly be availed of to enact a law in that behalf. The Act which is
applicable to Hindu religious or charitable institutions or endowments,
therefore, does not violate Article 14. Procedure for appointment of a non
hereditary trustee is a fair procedure for due administration and mainG
tenance of religious or charitable institutions and endowments.
Having regard to these diverse contentions, the question arises
whether Sections 15, 16, 17 29(5) and 144 of the Act are ultra vires the
Constitution. They reads thus :
H
614
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REP OR TS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
"15. Appointment of Board of Tntstees :
(1) In respect of a charitable or religious institution or endowment
including in the list published under clause (a) of Section 6 -
(a) whose annual income exceeds rupees ten lakhs, the Government shall constitute a Board of trustees consisting of nine persons
appointed by them;
(b) whose annual income does not exceed rupees ten lakhs, the
Commissioner shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of
seven persons appointed by him.
(2) In respect of a charitable or religious institution or endowment
included in the list published under clause (b) of Section 6, the
Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall constitute a Board
of trustees consisting of seven persons appointed by him.
(3) In the case of any charitable or religious institution or endowment included in the list published under clause (C) of Section 6,
the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction shall constitute a
Board of Trustees consisting of five persons appointed by him :
Provided that the Assistant Commissioner may either in the
interest of the institution or endowment or for any other sufficient
cause or for reasons to be recorded in writing appoint a single
trustee instead of a Board of Trustees.
16. Abolition of heredita1y tntstees :- Notwithstanding any compromise or agreement entered into or scheme framed or judgment,
decree, or order passed by any court, tribunal or other authority
or in a deed or other document prior to the commencement of
this Act and in force on such commencement, the rights of a person
for the office of the hereditary trustee or mutawalli or dharamakarta or muntazim or by whatever name it is called shall stand
abolished on such commencement.
17. Procedure for maki11g appoi11tment of t1ustees a11d their tenn:-
(1) In making the appointment of trustees under Section 15 of
Government, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the
Assistant Commissioner as the case may be, shall have due regard
H ·
to the religious denomination or any such section thereof to which
1.--<-
• ....
'
P.B. PIIT!v. STATE[K. RAMASWAMY,J.]
615
the institution belongs or the endowment is made and the wishes A
of the founder :
Provided that one of the trustees shall be from the family of
the founder, if qualified.
Further details are not relevant. Hence omitted.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
( 4) No person shall be a trustee in more than one Board of
Trustees.
B
,c
29. (5) (a) The Executive Officer appointed under this section shall
be under the administrative control of the trustee of the institution
or endowment and shall be responsible for carrying out all law full
direclions issued by such trustee, from time to time;
(b) The Executive Officer shall, subject to such restrictions as may D
be imposed by the Government -
(i) be responsible for the proper maintenance and custody of all
the records, accounts and other documents and of all the jewels,
valuables, moneys, funds and other properties of the institution or E
endowment;
(ii) arrange for the proper collection of income and for incurring
of expenditure;
(iii) sue or by sued by the name of the institution or endowment
in all legal proceedings :
Provided that any legal proceeding pending immediately before
the commencement of this Act, by or against an institution or
endowment which any person other than an Executive Officer is
suing or being sued shall not be affected;
(iv) all moneys received by the institutions or endowment in such
bank or treasury as may be prescribed and be entitled to sign all
orders cheques against such moneys;
F
G
Provided that such deposit may be made in the treasury if the rate H
616
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(19%] 1 S.C.R.
of interest offered by it is higher than that of any bank.
(v) have power in cases of emergency, to direct the execution of
any work or the doing of any act which is provided for in the budget
for the year or the immediate execution or doing of which is in his
opinion, necessary for the preservation of properties of the institution or endowment or for the service or safety of the pilgrims
resorting thereto and to direct that the expenses of executing such
work or the doing such act shall be paid from the funds of the
institution or endowment :
Provided that the Executive Officer shall report forthwith to the
trustee any action taken by him under this sub-clause and the
reasons therefor.
( c) The Executive Officer shall, with the prior approval of the
trustee, institute any legal proceedings in the name of the institution or endowmen~ or defend any such legal proceedings;
( d) Where there is no Executive Officer in respect of any charitable
or religious institution or endowment the trustee or the Chairman
of the Board of Trustees, as the case may be, of the institution or
endowment shall exercise the powers perform the functions and
discharge the duties of an Executive Officer.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
144. Aboliti011 of shares i11 Hundi andnther msums :- Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other
authority or any scheme, custom, usage or agreement, or in any
manual prepared by any institution or in any Farmana or Sanad
or any deed or order of the Government to the contrary governing
any charitable or religious institution or endowment, all shares
which are payable or being paid or given or allowed at the commencement of this Aci to any Trustee, Dharmakartha, Mutawall~
any office holder or servant including all offerings made in the
premises of the Temple or at such places as may be specified by
the Trustee, all Prasadams and Panyarams offered either by the
Temple or devotee, and such other kinds of offerings, all shares
in the lands of the institution or endowment allotted. or allowed to
y
-
'
P.B. PI1TI v. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY, J.]
617
be in possession and enjoyment of any archaka, office holder or A
servant towards remuneration or otherwise for rendering service
and for defraying the 'Paditharam' and other expenses connected
with the service or management of the temple, shall stand
abolished with effect on and from the commencement of this Act."
The object of the Act is to consolidate and amend the law relating
to the administration and governance of charitable and Hindu religious
institutions and endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh as the title of
the Act itself indicates. It applies to all public charitable institutions and
endowments, whether registered or not, in accordance with the provisions
of the Act other than Wakfs governed under the Wakfs Act, 1954. It also
applies to all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments whether
registered or not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section
2(16) defines "hereditary trustee" to mean the trustee of a charitable or
religious institution and endowment, the succession to whose office devolB
c
ves according to the rule of succession laid down by the founder or D
according to usage or custom applicable to the institution or endowment
or according to the law of succession for the time being in force, as the
case may be. "Charitable endowment' means all property given or endowed
for any charitable purpose. Religious institutions or endowment, as defined
in Section 2(22) means property (including movable property) and religious
offerings whether in cash or kind given or endowed for the support of a E
religious institution or given or endowed for the performance of any service
or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious
charity and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof. "Religious institution" defined in Section 2(23), means a math, temple
F
or specific endowment and includes a Brindavan, Samadhi or any other
institution established or maintained for a religious purpose. "Specific
endowment", defined by Section 2 (25), means any property or money
endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a
charitable or religious institution or for the performance of any other
charity, religious or otherwise. Under Section 6 of the Act, the Commissioner shall prepare separately and publish in the prescribed manner, a list G
of all religious'or charitable institutions and endowments etc., all properties
belonging to or given or endowed to the charitable or religious institutions
or endowments, as the case may be. Equally, of public religious or
charitable institutions or endowments. Section 15 deals with appointment
of board of trustees in accordance with the procedure prescribed thereH
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R: •·
A under. Section 16, with a 11011 obstante clause, abolishes hereditary trusteeship. Consequently, the right of a person for the office of the hereditary
trustee or mutawalli or dharmakarta or muntazim or by whatever name
called, stands abolished on commencement of the Act. Section 17 provides
procedure to make appointment of trustee and their term of office. Section
B
29(5) deal with the appointment and duties of Executive Officers who shall
be responsible for carrying out all lawful directions issued by trustee from
time to time. He shall be responsible for the proper maintenance and
custody of all records, accounts and other documents and all the jewels,
valuables etc. of the institution or endowment. Section 144 deals with the
abolition of shares being paid or allowance given or allowed to any trustee,
C dharmakartha, mutawalli, any office holder or servant. The shares in the
land or institution or endowment allotted or allowed to be in possession
and enjoyment of office holder towards remuneration or otherwise stands
abolished.
D
To complete the narrative and to have homogeneous whole, it is of
relevance to tread into the powers and duties of the trustees regulated in
Chapter III of the Act. Section 23 deals with powers of the trustees. The
trustee of every charitable or religious institution or endowment has to
administer its affairs, manage its properties and apply its funds in accordance with the terms of_t~e trust, the usage of the institution or endowment,
E and all lawful directions which a competent authority may issue in respect
thereof. He is also enjoined to act as carefully as a man of ordinary
prudence would deal with such affairs, fund and properties, if they were
of his own. All powers incidental to the prudent and beneficial administration of charitable or religious institution or endowment are entrusted to
F
him. Other details are incidental to the exercise of the power and for the
present controversy they are not of material consequence, hence omitted.
Section 24 prescribes duties of the trustees. Section 25 deals with fixation
of dittam known as "scale of expenditure". Section 26 prescribed powers of
trustees of charitable or religious institution over trustee of specific endowments. Section 27 validates acts of trustees or board of trustees despite
G defect in their performance thereof. Section 29 deals with appointment and
duties of executive officers and Section 32 with appointment of subordinate
officers. Sections 30 and 31 relate to appointment of Engineering staff,
Architects and Shilpis.
H
The first question is whether it is necessary that the legislature should
-
'
P.B. P!Tllv. STATE [K RAMASWAMY,J.]
619
make law uniformly applicable to all religious or charitable or public A
institutions and endowments established or maintained by people profess·
ing all religions. In a pluralist society like India in which people have faith
in their respective religions, beliefs or tenets propounded by different
religions or their off-shoots, the founding fathers, while making the Constitution were confronted with problems to unify and integrate people of
India professing different religious faiths, born in different castes, sex or B
sub-sections in the society speaking different languages and dialects in
different regions and provided secular Constitution to integrate all sections
of the society as a united Bharat. The directive principles of the Constitution themself visualise diversity and attempted to foster uniformity among
people of different faiths. A uniform law, though is highly desirable, C
enactment thereof in one go perhaps may be counter-productive to unity
and integrity of the nation.