11/28/2016

ConstitutionalValidityoftheHinduReligiousandCharitableEndowmentAct

LawArticlesIndia'sMostAuthenticeFreelegalSourceOnline

Home

TopRated

SubmitArticle

AdvancedSearch

FAQ

ContactUs

LawyersinIndia

LawForum

RSSFeeds

RegisteryourCopyrightOnline
Weoffercopyrightregistrationrightfromyourdesktopclickherefordetails.

LatestArticles |Articles2014 |Articles2013 |Articles2012 |Articles2011 |Articles2010 |Articles2009 |Articles2008 |Articles2007 |Articles2006 |Articles200005
SearchOn:

LawsinIndia
Search

MutualConsentDivorceinDelhi
Weprovidefast,costeffectiveandHasslefreesolution.
ContactusatPhno:9650499965 (DivorceLawFirmDelhi)

EnterKEYWORDheretofindarticles...

Arbitration

ConstitutionalValidityoftheHinduReligiousandCharitableEndowmentAct

AviationLaw

Pleaseloginorregisteranewfree
account.
(Saveas.pdf)

BankingandFinance
laws
CaseLaws

Published :July25,2014|Author :kiruthikadhanapal@legalserviceindia.com

Category :ConstitutionalLaw|TotalViews :13927|Rating:

Print|

Emailtofriend

Constitution alValidityoftheHinduReligiousandCharitable

CivilLaws

EndowmentAct

CompanyLaw
ConstitutionalLaw
Consumerlaws
Contractslaws
Criminallaw
Druglaws
Dubailaws
Educationallaws
Employment/Labour
laws
EnvironmentalLaw
familylaw
GaylawsandThird
Gender
HumanRightslaws
Immigrationlaws
Insurance/Accident
Claim
IntellectualProperty
InternationalLaw
JuvenileLaws
Lawlawyers&legal
Profession
LegalAidandLokAdalat
Legaloutsourcing
Medialaws
Medicolegal
Miscellaneous
Realestatelaws
RightToInformation
TaxLaws
TortsLaw
WomanIssues
WorkplaceEquality&
NonDiscrimination
YetAnotherCategory

More Options
Mostreadarticles
Mostratedarticles

Subscription
Subscribenowandreceivefree
articlesandupdatesinstantly.

Name
Email

Subscribe

CopyrightRegistration
ToCopyrightYourBooks,Videos,
Songs,Scripts etc
Callusat:9891244487/oremail
at:admin@legalserviceindia.com
TopLawColleges

LawUpdates:

Login

Welcome!

Search AdvancedSearch

AccidentLaw

Remove

Main Categories

EmailloginPassword

IndianDemocracyisgovernedbyawrittenconstitution.The
majority population of this sub continent are Hindus. The
kiruthikadhanapal@legalserviceindia.com
Hindureligionisconsideredtobeoneoftheoldestreligions
KiruthikaDStudentB.A.,B.L.,(Hons)
in the world. Hindu religion encompasses itself several
SchoolofExcellenceinLaw
castes/sub castes of different shape and different colour.
Viewarticles | Contactauthor
The caste and sub caste also very from State to State or
fromregiontoregion.Thepracticealsovariestoalargeextent.TheHindureligionatbestcanbe
consideredtobeacaseof unity indiversity.TheHindureligionisbasedonscripturessuchas
Upanishads, vedaa, Geetha etc. Hindu religion is considered to be a way of life. Hindu religion
permits worship of even inanimate objects
Ashwathavrikshaisworshipped/Nagadevatasare
worshipped/soil is worshipped/ sea is worshipped
togivefewexamples.
Thelawoftheland,whichiscommonanduniformthroughoutthecountryacrossallstatesand
union territories for the religious minorities, is not so for the Hindu majority. This anomaly is
clearly evident from the fact that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is not
uniformacrossthecountry.Inasecularcountry,whichissupposedtohaveequalrespectforall
the religions, how could a state have control of only Hindu Temples and not other religious
worshippingplaces?HowcometheHRandCEActisenactedinsomestatesandnotsoinsome
otherstates?So,itautomaticallythrowsabigquestion,whetherthecharterofHRandCEActis
Constitutional?
BackgroundOfPassingOfTheHinduReligiousAndCharitableEndowmentAct

Around 1840, the then British Government started giving up administration of temples. They
asked some of the prominent mutts in Tamil Nadu to look after some of the important temples
and endowments. The Heads of Mutts who were happy to takeover the administration of these
temples so that they are run as they ought to be run, were careful enough to get written
documentsorMuchalikasfromtheBritishGovernment,whichassuredthemthattheywouldnot
takebackthetemplesfromtheMutts.
Thus some very important temples came under the complete control and ownership of these
MuttsandtheMuttsranthemablyandefficiently.Theprimarypurposesofworshipandutilization
offundsmeantfortheupkeepoftemplesandconductofritualswereneverlostsightofbythe
HeadsofMuttsorofficers.Whileafew temples were thus brilliantly administered by the Mutts,
thousandsofothertemples in the then Madras Presidency were handed over to the respective
trusteeswiththethenGovernmentplayinglittleornoroleinsupervisingthem.

RandomPick
Theeconomic
philosophyunderliningthe
Constitutionisthe
establishmentofawelfare
Stateandaneconomic
systemrootedinthe
fulfillmentoftheindividual,controlledand
boundedalwaysbythevaluesofthe
principlesofthesocietyinwhichhelived.
fullstory|sendtofriend

Statistics
TotalArticles

1370

TotalAuthors

3972

TotalViews

15357450

Totalcategories

40

LawForum
FreelegalAdvicelawyersForum
Needtochangeonlyoneclause(ofrent)
inregister...
AandBsignedaleaseagreement1years
back(for4years).Thiswasregisteredand
registrationfeepaid.Afteroneyearof
runninglease,dueto...
Nov28,20166:18:07AM
Re:Regardingaccesstolandlocked
property
Nooneisansweringthequestion
Nov27,201610:26:16AM
Re:Seconddivorceforthesamewife
DearSir,Ifthereisnosecondmarriage
thentherecannotbeseconddivorce.
Regards,
Nov28,201612:03:29PM

In1925,theMadrasHinduReligiousEndowmentsAct,1923(ActIof1925)waspassed by the
localLegislaturewiththeobjectofprovidingforbettergovernanceandadministrationofcertain
religious endowments. The Act divided temples into what are known as Excepted and Non
exceptedtemples.Immediatelyafter the Act came into force, its validity was challenged on the
groundthattheActwasnotvalidlypassed.Forthisreason,thelegislatureenactedtheMadras
HinduReligiousEndowmentsAct,1926,ActIIof1927repealingActIof1925.
This Act was amended from time to time. It is unnecessary to refer to the changes introduced
later.SufficeittosaythattheActwasamendedby1946byasmanyastenActsIof1928,Vof
1929,IVof1930,XIof1931,XIof1934,XIIOf1935,XXof1938,XXIIof1939,Vof1944andX
of1946.Aradicalchangewasintroduced,however,byActXIIof1935.TheGovernmentwasnot
satisfiedwiththepowersoftheBoardthenexistingandtheyclothedtheBoardwithanimportant
anddrasticpowerbyintroducinganewChapter,Ch.VIA,bywhichjurisdictionwasgiventothe
Boardtonotifyatempleforreasonstobegivenbyit.
Thus, it can be seen that even in the preindependence era, the Board had systematically
consolidated its powers to take over and administer temples. Of course, this despicable
interventionbyGovernmentappliedonlytoHinduInstitutions.
Notwithstanding the clear directions of the Madras Government in 1947 to drop notification
proceedings and the clear direction of the Honble Madras High Court in 1939 that the Board
cannot undertake notification process on frivolous grounds, the Board started the notification
process of the Chidambaram Shri Sabhanayagar Temple in 1950 and the then Madras
GovernmentissuedaGovernmentOrder (G.O.) Ms. 894, Rural Welfare Dept. dated 2881951
publishedintheFortSt.GeorgeGazetteon491951.
Meanwhile, India after gaining independence from British rule had become a Republic on 26
January1950,withitsConstitutionguaranteeingcertainfundamentalrightstoitscitizens.Special
religious and administrative rights were guaranteed to Religious Denominations or sections
thereof.
TheBoardalsotriedtotakeoverthefamousShriGuruvayurappanTempleinGuruvayur,Udupi

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/constitutionalvalidityofthehindureligiousandcharitableendowmentact16871.html

1/7

11/28/2016
#IncomeTax
#Familylaw
#CompanyLaw
#ConstitutionalLaw
#Partnershipfirms
#ImmigrationLaw
#CyberLaw
#LokAdalat,legalAid&PIL
#Forms
#Trademarks
#Womanissues
#MedicoLegal
#Consumerlaws
#Criminallaws
#SupremeCourtJudgments

ConstitutionalValidityoftheHinduReligiousandCharitableEndowmentAct
Shri Krishna Temple under the management of Shri Shirur Mutt of Udupi and Shri
Venkataramana Temple belonging to the sect of Gowd Saraswath Brahmins in Mulkipetta of
SouthKanaradistrict.
AlltheabovereligiousinstitutionschallengedthetakeoverbytheHRCEBoard.Inthemeantime,
a new Hindu Religious Act was passed by the Madras Government, known as the Hindu
ReligiousandCharitableEndowmentsAct,1951.
TheObjectOfTheHinduReligiousAndCharitableEndowmentAct

ThereligiousfreedomisguaranteedbytheConstitutionsotheinterventionoftheGovernmentin
the administration of religious institution through the Statutory Boards may seen paradoxical.
There was no mention of temples in Vedic Collection of Hymns and Prayers. When fire was lit
oblations were said to be made in the place there at. In later Brahmana period temples were
Constructed for accommodation of images of gods. Charities began to flourish and valuable
endowmentssuchaslandedpropertiesforpiouspurposeswerewellestablishedinlater period
the cult of religious worship developed and Gifts for religious and Charitable purposes were
impelled by the desire to acquire religious merit. So the Hindu temples are founded, endowed
andmaintainedgenerallyforthebenefitofgeneralHindupublic.
Inearlierperioditwasaprivateaffairandasanwhenthetemplesbecameinspiring centres of
the Social and Cultural life of the Community, Centres of promotion and patronage of art and
architecture,andotherfinearts,andbeganto serve as a centres of learning and fostering and
growthofthepietyandlearningandasaneffectiveinstrumentofpoorrelief,itbegantobecome
apublic affair. Thereafter out of the rituals for establishment of endowments which became an
objectofgeneralpublicutility.Sincededicationistherenunciationofownership,tothedeity,and
hence began the accumulation assets beyond imagination and slowly mismanagement,
discrepancies, and mal administration began to Geep into the temple administration to keep it
withinthedomainofpersonswithulteriormotive.Theavariciousbegantorooltheroostoftemple
affairs, which invited the intervention of the Government to the administration of religious
institutions. But the objectives of various enactments of the yester years would mention, as an
efforttoputanendtothegreedofthepowermongers,whosequarrelsomecontesttograbthe
flourishingassetsofeventhealmighty,andtoprotectandmakedueupkeepofthetempleand
propertiesattachedthereto,fromantisocialelementsforitseternalexistence.Assuchtheobject
ofthelegislationoftheMadrasHinduReligious&CharitableEndowmentAct1951,asindicated
in the preamble is to amend and consolidate thelaw relating to the administration and
governanceofHinduReligious & Charitable Endowment. So the Hindu Religious & Charitable
EndowmentAct exists for better administration, protection and preservation of temples and the
endowed properties attached thereto, and for fulfillment of the objects, with reasonable
restrictions,whichdonotviolatetherightsofreligiousfreedomguaranteedbytheconstitution.
SecularismConceptualContradictionNeedForSecularMinds

AdiscussiononSecularismseemstobehighlypertinentatthismomentgiventhefactthatour
country is now witnessing fissiparous endencies apparently based on religion. Although the
menaceofcommunalismisnotanewphenomenoninthe Indian society, yet it is quite baffling
and embarrassing that even after more than six decades of independence and despite an
emphaticproclamationbytheconstitutionthatwearesecular,stillthingsarenotsobright.
Beforeproceedingfurther,itisnecessarytohaveanideaofthenatureandmeaningoftheterm
secularism.Itisinterestingtonotethatthereisnoagreedandprecisemeaningofsecularismin
ourcountry.AsJawaharlalNehruwroteinhisautobiographynowordperhapsinanylanguage
ismorelikelytobeinterpretedindifferentwaysbythepeopleasthewordreligion.Thatbeing
the case, secularism which is a concept evolved in relation to religion can also not have the
sameconnotationforall.
Therearetwopossiblemodelsofsecularism.Inthefirstone,thereisacompleteseparationof
religion and state to the extent that there is an impassable wall between religion and secular
spheres.Insuchamodel,thereisnostateinterventionofreligiousmattersandviceversa.Inthe
othermodel,allreligionsaretobetreatedequallybythestateinotherwords,thestateisequi
distantfromallreligions.Thismodelisalsoreferredtoasnondiscriminatoryandisparticularly
relevant for multireligious societies. In contrast to the former model, the latter allows for state
intervention on grounds of public order and social justice. The Sanskrit phrase Sarva Dharma
SambhavaisthemostappropriateIndianvisionofsecularstateandsociety.Butitshouldnotbe
forgottenthatthewordSecularhasnotbeendefinedorexplainedundertheconstitutioneitherin
1950orin1976whenitwasmadepartofthepreamble.
Secularismasamodernpoliticalandconstitutionalprincipleinvolvestwobasicpropositions.The
firstisthatpeoplebelongingtodifferentfaithsandsectsareequalbeforethelaw,theconstitution
andthegovernmentpolicy.Thesecondrequirementisthattherecanbenomixingupofreligion
andpolitics.Itfollowsthattherecanbenodiscriminationagainst
any one on the basis of religion or faith nor is there room for the hegemony of one religion or
majoritarian religious sentiments and aspirations. It is in this double sense no discrimination
againstanyoneongroundsoffaithandseparationofreligionfrompoliticsthatourconstitution
safeguardssecularism.
Indiaisamultireligioussocietyandthesurvivalofsuchasocietyispossibleonlyitallreligions
aregivenequaltreatmentwithoutanyfavourordiscrimination.Thepartitionofthecountrywas
apparentlybasedonreligionandthiswasaneyeopenerforthemakersoftheconstitutionwhen
theywereengagedinthetaskofgivingaconcreteshapetotheconstitutionofourcountry.The
word secular was not there in our constitution when it actually came in the being. It was
subsequentlyincorporatedintothepreambleoftheconstitutionbythe42ndAmendmentActof
1976.Theformalinclusionoftheadjectivaltermssecularismainlytheresultofmeetingoutthe
exigenciesoftheprevailingcircumstances,requirementofpartypoliticsandideologicalwindow
dressing.Thesomeextent,italsoreflectstheignoranceandapathyoftheideologuesthatthey
addeditmerelytothepreamble,anddidnottakecaretobringaboutsuitablemodificationsinside
theconstitution.ItcanbepointedoutthatthetermusedafterthewordSocialistisredundantas
a socialist democratic state has necessarily to be secular. In view of the various articles
appearinginpartIIIoftheconstitution,itcanbesaidthatIndiawasalreadyasecularstateand
therewasnoneedofsuchaddition.ItrathergaveafalseimpressionthatpreviouslyIndiawasnot
asecularstate.
Theconstitutionrequiresthatthereshallnotbeanystatereligionandthatthestateshalltreatall
religions equally. It does not, however, prevent the state from financially assisting educational
institutionssponsoredbythechurch or religious organizations. The state has also reserved to
itself and has sometimes exercised the right to interfere in the religious practices of various
communities in the interest of their peaceful coexistence and cultural development. Although

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/constitutionalvalidityofthehindureligiousandcharitableendowmentact16871.html

2/7

11/28/2016

ConstitutionalValidityoftheHinduReligiousandCharitableEndowmentAct
freedom of religion is granted to all people as a fundamental right under Article 25 of the
constitution,Article44directsthestatetoenactauniformcivilcodeapplicabletoallirrespective
of their religions faith and beliefs. Further, the directive principles contain a special provision
enunciatingbanoncowslaughterasadesirablepolicy.
IsIndiatrulysecular?Well,ifwegothroughthebasicfeatureofsecularismasunderstoodinthe
west,itcanbeseenthatstatehasnothingtodowithreligionandtherewillbenodiscrimination
betweencitizensonthebasisoftheirreligionorformofworshipandthateverybodywillbeequal
beforelaw.Ifthisistruesecularism,Indiaceasestobesecularforithasdifferentsetsoflawsfor
differentcommunities.
Ifweanalyzethevariouslegislations,whichareinvogueinourcountry,wewouldfindthatsome
ofthemarenotinconsonancewiththeconceptofsecularism.Forinstance,undersection494of
the Indian Penal Code, bigamy is an offence and a person, who contracts a second marriage
whilethefirstmarriageissubsisting,isguiltyoftheoffence.Butthisprovisionisinapplicableto
thosepeoplewhocanhavemorethanonewifeaspertheirreligion.Theveryfactthatoperation
ofapenalprovisionisnotalikeamongallpeopleandthatitisdependentononesreligiousfaith
tantamounttomaking a mockery of the very concept of secularism. Similarly, the enactment of
theMuslimwomen(ProtectionofRightsonDivorce)Act,1986withaviewtocircumventtheapex
courtsdecisionintheShahBanocaseandtotreatthedivorcedMuslimwomendifferentlyfrom
theircounterpartsinotherreligiousfaithscannotbetermedassecular.TodenyrightstoMuslim
women which are available to the women of other faiths is a violation of the provisions of the
constitution that the state shall not discriminate against any citizens as grounds of religion.
AlthoughArticle15oftheconstitutionprohibitsdiscriminationonthebasisofreligion,eventoday
therightsandliabilitiesofpeoplerelatingtomaintenance,inheritanceetc.differaccordingtotheir
religion.Thiscastsashadowonourclaimofbeingatrulysecularstate.
It is a matter of great concern that secularism is struggling for survival in ourcountrynow.The
anti thesis of secularism is communalism, which is gaining momentum in our society at an
alarmingpace.Themixingofreligionwithpoliticsandthedangerousgrowthofcommunalparties
pose a major threat of the secular framework of our country. India is a secular state and yet
communalismcontinues to shape its policies. Frequent occurrences of violence in the name of
religiongivefatalblowstotheveryexistenceofsecularism.Therehavebeenreportsthatsome
stategovernmentswerepartisanandwereinstrumentalinaggravatingcommunalviolence.Such
shockingincidentswouldundoubtedlyaffectthesecularcredentialsofourcountry.Thedivorceof
politicsfromreligionistheneedofthehourandunlessthistaskisexpeditiouslyaccomplished,
secularism is bound to have its last breath in our country. The constitution of India does not
clearlyandexplicitlyandhencethereishardlyanyremedyifthestateactsinanunsecularway.
The Indian concept of secularism is full of contradictions and therefore, is unable to provide a
clear, unambiguous guidelines either to the individual or to the state. As a consequence, the
religiousvaluescontinuetodominatethedaytodayaffairsandintheprocessgeneratetension
because of plurality of religious views. In such circumstances, it is imperative that serious
attentionispaidtorevivesecularismandcurbcommunalism.AsecularstateinIndiaisnotonly
necessaryfromthepointofviewofthereligiousminoritiesbyisintheinterestofallthepeoplein
India including the majority community. In order to permanently banish the recurrence of
communalriots,itisnecessarytoadvancetheconceptofsecularism.Weneedtoprogresstoa
stagewherepoliticsiscompletelyfreeofreligionandreligiousfreedomofanindividualisallowed
onlytotheextentthatisdoesnotinterferewiththepersonalfreedomofothersandbettermentof
thesocietyingeneral.
With that end in view, we need to have a second look at the provisions of the constitution
concerning secularism. At present, there is hardly any remedy available to us against the state
jettisoningsecularpathorforusingtheorgansofthestateforreligiousandcommunalpurposes.
Thereisnothingintheconstitutiontostopformationandfunctioningofcommunalorganizations
andgroups and their participation in elections. Such loopholes need to be plugged withoutany
procrastination.
Overandaboveallthesemeasures,thereisneedforpositivechangeintheattitudeandoutlook
of the society towards Secularism. In a multireligious, multiracial and multicultural developing
societylikeIndia,itisnecessarythatrulers,leaders,administratorsandcitizenshaveveryclear
ideasaboutSecularism.Ifwearetoevolveasecularstate,weneedtoproducesecularminds.
TheHrandCeActViolates Article s14,25And26OfTheIndian Constitution

Article14prohibitsdiscrimination.Itfurtherprohibitsanarbitrary,unreasonableActonthepartof
thestate.Equalityandequalprotectionisavailabletoallcitizensofthecountry.Therecannever
bediscriminationbytheState.Theseprinciplesarewellsettled.
In Moseb Kaba Chowdhary & Anr. v. State of West Bengal , deals with Article 14 of the
ConstitutionofIndia.TheSupremeCourthasruledasunder:
ItiswellestablishedbythedecisionsofSupremeCourtthatArticle14condemnsdiscrimination
notonlybyasubstantivelawbutalsobyalawofprocedure.
InM.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., the Supreme Court again
noticesinparas19and21readingasunder:
India is a secular country. Secularism has been inserted in the Preamble by reason of the
Constitution 42nd amendment Act,1976.Theobjectofinsertingthesaid word was to spell out
expressly the high ideas of secularism and the integrity of the nation on the ground that these
institutions are subjected to considerable stresses and strains and vested interests have been
tryingtopromotetheirselfishendstothegreatdetrimentofthepublicgood.Itisnowwellsettled:
1)TheconstitutionprohibitstheestablishmentofatheocraticState.
2)TheConstitutionisnotonlyprohibitedtoestablishanyreligionofitsownbutisalsoprohibited
toidentifyitselfwithorfavouringanyparticularreligion.
3)ThesecularismundertheIndianConstitutiondoesnotmeanconstitutionofanatheistsociety
but it merely means equal status of all religions without any preference in favour of or
discriminationagainstanyoneofthem.
Fromthesecaselaws,whatiscleartousisthatdiscriminationisapleaavailableforthepurpose
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Law is also well settled that in the event of any
discrimination, it is hit by Article14. Equals are to be treated equally and equals are not to be
treated with unequals. Equal treatment is the foundation of Article 14 of the constitution. State
cannotdiscriminateinthematter.However,discriminationifalleged,thentheStatehastojustify
discrimination by acceptable material with acceptable reasons. Reasonable classification is
permissible.
In K. Mukundaraya Bhenoy v. The State of Mysore , the court has considered the right of

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/constitutionalvalidityofthehindureligiousandcharitableendowmentact16871.html

3/7

11/28/2016

ConstitutionalValidityoftheHinduReligiousandCharitableEndowmentAct
administrationofareligiousdenominationtemple.TheCourtruledinthatcasethatalawwhich
takesawaytherightofadministrationfromthehandsofareligiousdenominationaltogetherand
vestsitinanyotherauthoritywouldamounttoaviolationoftherightguaranteedunderArticle26
of the Constitution of India. In the subsequent Judgment reported in Angappa Goundan v.
Kuppammal, the Court considered the question of Hindu public temples. The Court noticed
MukundaryaShenoy'scaseandafternoticing,aDivisionBenchofthisCourthasruledthatthe
Hindus in the larger sense, including all sections of Hindus constitute a religious denomination
withinthemeaningofArticles21and26oftheConstitutionofIndia.ThisJudgmentwouldshow
thatinthematteroftempleadministration,thestatecannotdiscriminatebetweenHinduReligious
denominationVisavis,theHindutemple.TheinapplicabilitytotheHindureligious institution by
HinduReligiousdenominationisalsohitbyArticle14oftheconstitutionofIndia.Statehasfailed
initsdutytojustifyitsexclusiononthefactsofthiscase.
AFullBenchoftheKerala HighCourt inT.Krishnanv.G.D.M.Committee hasruledinparas35
and36asunder:
A religious sect or denomination has the undoubted right guaranteed by the Constitution to
manageitsownaffairsinmattersofreligionandthisIncludestherighttospendthetrustproperty
or its income for the religious purposes and objects indicated by the founder of the trust or
establishedbytheusageobtaininginaparticularinstitution.Todivertthetrustpropertiesorfunds
forpurposeswhichastatutoryauthorityorofficialorevenacourtconsidersexpedientorproper
although the original objects of the founder can still be carried out, is an unwarrantable
encroachment on the freedom of religious institutions in regard to the management of their
religious affairs. A statute cannot therefore empower any secular authority to divert the trust
moneyforpurposesotherthanthoseforwhichthetrustwascreatedasthatwouldconstitute a
violation of the right which a religious denomination has under Articles 25 and 26 of the
ConstitutiontopracticeitsreligionandtoManageitsownaffairsinmattersofreligion.
TherealpurposeandintendmentofArticles25and26istoguaranteeespeciallytothereligious
minoritiesinthiscountrythefreedomtoprofess,practiceandpropagatetheirreligiontoestablish
and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, to manage its own affairs in
matters of religion, to own and acquire properties and to administer such properties in
accordancewithlawsubjectonlytothelimitationsandrestrictionsindicatedinthoseArticles.No
doubt,thefreedomguaranteedbythesetwoArticlesappliesnotmerelytoreligiousminoritiesbut
toallpersons(Article29)andallreligiousdenominationsorsectionsthereof(Article 26). But in
interpretingthescopeand content of the guarantee contained in the two Articles the Court will
alwayshavetokeepinmindtherealpurposeunderlyingtheincorporationoftheseprovisionsin
thefundamentalrightsChapter.
WhenachallengeisraisedbeforeaCourtagainstthevalidityofanystatuteascontraveningthe
fundamentalrightsguaranteedunderArticles25and26itisfromtheaboveperspectivethatthe
courtwillapproachthequestionandtheteststobeappliedforadjudgingthevalidityofthestatute
will be the same irrespective of whether the person or denomination complaining about the
infringementofthesaidfundamentalrightbelongstoareligiousminorityornot.
ThesupremeCourthasruledinBalPatilandAnr.v.unionofIndiathattheStatehasnoreligion
andStatehastotreatallreligionsandreligiouspeopleequallyandwithequalrespectwithoutin
anymannerinterferingwiththeirIndividualrightsofreligion,faithandworship.
InRatilalv.StateofBombay ,thesupremeCourthasruledasunderinpara11:
ThelanguageofthistwoClause(b)and(d)ofArticle26wouldatoncebringout the difference
between the two. In regard to affairs in matters of religion, the right of management given to a
religiousbody,isaguaranteedfundamentalrightwhichnolegislationcantakeaway,ontheother
hand,asregardsadministrationofpropertywhichareligiousdenominationisentitledtoownand
acquire. A law, which takes away the right of administration altogether from the religious
denominationandvestsitinanyotherorsecularauthority,wouldamounttoviolationoftheright
whichisguaranteedbyArticle26(d)oftheConstitution.
Article 26(b) provides for a law with regard to regulating or restricting any political and other
secularactivitiesandprovidingforsocialwelfareetc.Buttakingoverandprovidingadministration
in respect of the Government temples, despite their better management certainly would be in
violationofnotonlyArticle14butalsounderArticles25and26oftheconstitutionofIndia.Taking
all temples and administering then without any adverse order would be hit byArticle 26 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the Government cannot in the guise of better administration
takeover even the best administered temple for the purpose of managing the temple without
justification. That would be certainly, a rightly argued, in violation of Article 26(b) of the
Constitution.
IntheShirurMuttCase, theSChasruleshasunder:
ThejudgmentoftheConstitutionBenchoftheSupremeCourtintheappealrelatedtotheShirur
MuttandthejudgmentbyanotherConstitutionBenchintheVenkataramanaDevaruvs.Stateof
MysorearelandmarkjudgmentsthatCourtsinIndiaareexpectedtofollowregardingArticle26of
theIndianConstitutionandDenominationrights.
The Honble Supreme Court agreed with the Honble Madras High Court that many of the
sectionsofthe1951HR&CEActwereultravirestheConstitution.Italsoclearlyobservedthat
while the legislature could seek to regulate the administration, it must always leave the
administrationtothedenomination.TheAdvocateGeneralofMadrasagreedwiththeCourtand
saidhecouldnotdefendthosesections.
Article 25And26OfTheIndian Constitution MustBeViewedWith Pragmatism

Adoptedin1950,Article17oftheIndianConstitutionlegallyabolisheduntouchabilitytheancient
Hindusystemofsocialdiscriminationforbadeitspracticeinanyform,andmadetheenforcement
ofanydiscriminationarisingoutofthisdisabilityacriminaloffence.Atthesametime,theIndian
ConstitutionguaranteedfreedomofreligiousbeliefandpracticeunderArticle25andautonomyof
religiousinstitutionsunderArticle26.Howodd,sincethatisexactlywhathappenedinIndiainthe
1950s and 1960s. In those decades, Article 26 was brandished all over India in response to
reformist legislation passed in most states in order to give effect to Article 17. These Temple
Entry laws opened Hindu temples to Dalitspeople considered untouchable by caste Hindus.
However,unlikeAmericanjuristsandjudges,themakersoftheIndianConstitutionhadforeseen
constitutionalconflict,hencethefreedomofreligionclauses(Articles25and26)camequalified
abinitiowithdeclarationsoftheabilityoftheIndianstatetoregulatethenonreligiousaspectsof
religion and to undertake social reform. Thus, when Gouda Saraswath Brahman trustees
attemptedtokeepthetempleofSriVenkataramanah,inMulki,SouthKarnataka,freeofpollution
fromuntouchablesbyclaimingthatitwasadenominationaltempleandhenceentitledtolimitits
benefitstomembersofthedenominationorthoseadmittedattheirdiscretion,theSupremeCourt
statedthattheconstitutionalclausesenablingthestatetoopenHindutemplestoallHindus(i.e.
including Dalits) overrode other considerations. And when the Gujarati Swaminarayan

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/constitutionalvalidityofthehindureligiousandcharitableendowmentact16871.html

4/7

11/28/2016

ConstitutionalValidityoftheHinduReligiousandCharitableEndowmentAct
Sampradaya, or Satsangis, claimed exception, in Sastri Yagnapurushdasji v. Muldas
Bhundardas,onthebasisthattheywerenotHindusatall,anactivistjudiciary,ledbythenChief
JusticeP.B.Gajendragadkar,committedallthoseepistemicsinsthatwritersinthisserieshave
discussed:hereducedHinduismtocertainbasics,andthentoldSatsangiescapiststhattheyjolly
wellwereHindusandhadbetterbehavelikegood,modern,butalsoauthenticHindus.Inpursuit
ofacenturylongefforttomakeHinduismethicalanddemocratic,anactwaspassedbythestate
ofMadrasin1951reinforcingthepowerofagovernmentdepartmentcalledtheHinduReligious
and Charitable Endowments Commission to inspect and supervise Hindu temples and maths
(monasteries)andaudittheiraccounts.Inresponse,severalArticle26caseswerelodged,which
led to certain sections of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (1951) being
deemed unconstitutional. But in one case, the judges of the Madras HighCourt also explained
whythefreedomofreligionclausesdidnotofferasecureescaperoutefromthereformistagenda
of the Indian state. Charmingly, they said it was because India was not Americain India there
wasnorigidandcompletewallofseparationbetweentheChurchandState.
TheSupremeCourthadsaidintheJudgmentinBalPatil &Anr.v.UnionofIndia.Thesupreme
courthasruledthat"Differentialtreatmentstolinguisticminoritiesbasedonlanguagewithinthe
state is understandable but if the same concept for minorities on the basis of religion is
encouraged,thewholecountry,whichisalreadyunderclassandsocialconflictsduetovarious
divisiveforces,willfurtherfacedivisiononthebasisofreligiousdiversities."Therefore,wehave
nohesitationinholdingthatonthisgroundalso,theActBuffersfromviolationofArticle14ofthe
ConstitutionofIndia.
In Moseb Kaba Chowdhary & Anr. v. State of West Bengal , deals with Article 14 of the
ConstitutionofIndia.TheSupremeCourthasruledasunder:
It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid
reasonable classification or the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of
permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely (i) that the classification must
be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped
togetherfromothersleftoutofthegroupand(11)thatdifferentiamusthavearationalrelationto
theobjectsoughttobeachievedbythestatuteinquestion.Theclassificationmaybefoundedon
differentbases,namely,geographical,oraccordingtoobjectsoroccupationsorthelike,whatis
necessaryisthattheremustbeanexusbetweenthebasisofclassificationandtheobjectofthe
Actunderconsideration.
InPannalal Bansilal PatilandOrs.v.State ofAndhra Pradesh andAnr.,dealswithuniformlaw
foralldesirableone.TheSupremecourtinpara12hasruledasunder:
The first question is whether it is necessary that the legislature should make law uniformly
applicable to all religious or charitable or public institutions and endowments established or
maintainedbypeopleprofessingallreligions.InapluralistsocietylikeIndiainwhichpeoplehave
faith in their respective religions, beliefs or tenets propounded by different religions or their off
shootsthefoundingfatherswhilemakingtheConstitutionwereconfrontedwithproblemstounify
andintegratepeopleofIndiaprofessingdifferentreligiousfaiths,bornindifferentcastes,sexor
Subsections in the society speaking different languages and dialects in different regional and
provided secular Constitution to integrate all sections of the society as a united Bharat. The
directive principles of the Constitution themselves visualize diversity and attempted to foster
uniformityamongpeopleofdifferentfaiths.Auniformlawthoughishighlydesirable,enactment
thereof in one go perhaps may be counterproductive to unity and integrity 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
remedywheretheneedisfeltmostacute.Itwouldtherefore,beinexpedientandincorrecttothink
thatalllawshavetobemadeuniformlyapplicabletoallpeopleinonego.Themischiefordefect
whichismostacutecanberemediedbyprocessoflawatstages.
The Supreme Court in The Commissioner, Hindu..v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar : has
ruledthattheuniformlawisnecessaryintheadministrationofthereligiousinstitutionbelonging
toHindus.
Itwillbeseenthatbesidestherighttomanageitsownaffairsinmattersofreligion,whichisgiven
byClause(b),thenexttwoclausesofArticle26guaranteetoareligiousdenominationtherightto
acquire and own property and to administer such property in accordance with law. the
administration of its property by a religious denomination has thus been placed, on a different
footingfromtherighttomanageitsownaffairsinmattersofreligion.Thelatterisafundamental
rightwhichnoLegislaturecantakeaway,whereastheformercanberegulatedbylawswhichthe
Legislature can validly impose. It is clear, therefore, that questions merely relating to
administrator,institutionarenotmattersofreligiontowhichClause(b)oftheArticleapplies.
WhatArticle25(2)(a)contemplatesisnotregulationbythestationofreligiouspracticesassuch,
the freedom of which is guaranteed by the Constitution except when they run countertopublic
order,healthandmoralitybutregulationofactivitieswhichareeconomic,commercialorpolitical
intheircharacterthoughtheyareassociatedwithreligiouspractices.
InRatilalv.StateofBombay ,thesupremeCourthasruledasunderinpara11:
The power to take over the administration in the event of mal administration financial/mis
managementcertainlycannotbetermedasviolationofArticle26(b)oftheconstitutionofIndia.It
has undoubtedly the right to administer such property but only in accordance with law. This
meansthattheStatecanregulatetheadministrationoftrustpropertiesbymeansoflawsvalidly
enacted but here again it should be remembered that under Article 26(d), it is the religious
denominationitselfwhichhasbeengiventherighttoadministeritspropertyinaccordancewith
anylawwhichthestatemayvalidlyimpose.
InA.V.K.V.Templev.StateofUttarPradesh ,theSupremeCourtruledasunder:
ThereligiousfreedomguaranteedbyArticles25and26,therefore,isintendedtobeaguidetoa
community life and ordain every religion to act according to its cultural and social demands to
establish an egalitarian social order. Articles 25 and 26, therefore, strike a balance between
rigidity of right to religious belief and faith and their intrinsic restrictions in matters of religion,
religiousbeliefsandreligiouspracticesandguaranteedfreedomofconsciencetocommunewith
hisCosmos/Creatorandrealisehisspiritualself.
It is not every aspect of the religion that requires protection of Articles 25 and 26 nor has the
Constitution provided that every religious activity would not be interfered with. Every mundane
andhumanactivityisnotintendedtobeprotectedundertheConstitutioninthegarbofreligion.
Articles 25 and 26 must be viewed with pragmatism. By the very nature of things it would be
extremelydifficult,ifnotimpossible,todefinetheexpression"religion"or"mattersofreligion"or
"religiousbeliefsorpractice".RighttoreligionguaranteedbyArticles25and26isnotabsoluteor
unfettered right to propagate religion which is subject to legislation by the State limiting or
regulating every nonreligious activity. The right to observe and practice rituals and right to
manageinmattersofreligionareprotectedundertheseArticles.ButrighttomanagetheTemple

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/constitutionalvalidityofthehindureligiousandcharitableendowmentact16871.html

5/7

11/28/2016

ConstitutionalValidityoftheHinduReligiousandCharitableEndowmentAct
or endowments is not integral to religion or religious practice or religion as such which is
amenable to statutory control. These secular activities are subject to State regulation but the
religionandreligiouspracticeswhichareintegralpartofreligionareprotected.Itiswellsettled
law that administration, management and governance of the religious institution or endowment
aresecularactivitiesandtheStatecouldregulatethenbyappropriatelegislation.
Conclusion
HindureligionisoneoftheoldestreligionsavailableinIndia.Ithasthebackingofcenturiesold
scriptures,beliefetc.,thosebelieves,rituals,practicesetc.,aretobeprotected,unlessthesame
is totally opposed to any part of the Constitution of India. Therefore, while on one hand, the
religious rights in terms of Article 25 are to be protected and on the other hand, mal
administration,financialirregularitiesbyanyreligiousinstitutionhastobetakenseriousnoteofin
the larger interest of temple discipline itself. The state has to draw a balance in maintaining
templedisciple/templeadministrationintermsoftheConstitution of India. Since the very Act is
heldtobediscriminatoryinthisapplication,itisnotpossibletosevereotherpartsandhencethe
entireActhastobestruckdownasunconstitutional.Wealsodeemitpropertoobservethatthe
intentionoftheLegislatureseemstobeauniformlawforallHindureligiousinstitutions.Ifthatis
so,ashasbeendoneinAndhraPradeshintermsoftheSupremecourt,theGovernmentwould
be well advised to have a commission constituted for temple affairs and involve all non Hindu
religiousleaders/matadipathis/religiousexperts/socialreformersandotherexpertsandthereafter
proceed to pass a uniform law in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in The
Commissioner,Hindu..v.SriLakshmindraThirthaSwamiar..,TheGovernmentcanalsothink
of having different regulatory measures for temples/maths/Jains etc., depending upon their
religiousbeliefetc.,andofcourse,withinthefourcornersoftheconstitution.
However,itisforthelegislaturetodecidethereligiousreformativelawintermsofthispolicyof
uniformlawforHindureligions.WewouldleaveittotheLegislaturetotakealegislativedecision
internsoftheConstitution.However,wedeemitpropertoobservethattheGovernmentwould
bedoingagreatservicetotheHindusocietybyeliminatingalltheevilandcorruptpractices,ifat
allprevailinginHinduinstitutions.ThatwouldgoalongwayinHindutemplereforms.
************
Bibliography
Books:
# Ronojoy Sen, Legalizing Religion: The Indian Supreme Court and Secularism, EastWest
centerWashington,2007.
#TheNationalFoundationforCommunalHarmony,SecularismandtheLaw,NewDelhi,2010.
Article s:
#B.R.Haran,HR&CEAct:AFraudontheConstitution,bharatabharati.wordpress.com.
#T.R.Ramesh,HR&CEAct,www.vijavaani.com.
#TheObjectoftheHR&CEAct,www.malabardevaswom.kerala.gov.in.
Documents:
#ConstitutionofIndia.
#TheHinduReligiousandCharitableEndowmentAct.
Journals:
#AllIndiaReporter.
#B.R.Haran,HR&CEAct:AFraudontheConstitution,bharatabharati.wordpress.com.
#T.R.Ramesh,HR&CEAct,www.vijavaani.com.
#TheObjectoftheHR&CEAct,www.malabardevaswom.kerala.gov.in.
#TheNationalFoundationforCommunalHarmony,SecularismandtheLaw,NewDelhi,2010,p.
15.
#AIR1958SC536
#AIR2005SC3053
#1959Mys.LJ709
#1970(1)MLJ170
#AIR1978Kerala68
#AIR2005SC3172
#AIR1954SC388
#AIR1954SC282
#1958SCR895
#(1959)61BOMLR1016.
#2005SC3172.
#1958SC536
#1964(9)FLR355
#1980SC1
#AIR1954SC388
#1997(4)SC124
# Ronojoy Sen, Legalizing Religion: The Indian Supreme Court and Secularism, EastWest
centerWashington,2007,p.46.
#AIR1980SC1.

Theauthorcanbereachedat:kiruthikadhanapal@legalserviceindia.com

ThisarticlehasbeenAwardedCertificateof
ExcellenceforOriginalLegalResearchworkby
ourPenalofJudges

Ratethisarticle! Poor

5
Excellent RateNow!

Mostviewedarticlesin ConstitutionalLaw category

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar,TheFatherofIndianConstitution
PositionofFundamentalRightsduringEmergency
PrinciplesofNaturalJusticeInIndianConstitution
RightToPrivacyUnderArticle21andtheRelatedConflicts

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/constitutionalvalidityofthehindureligiousandcharitableendowmentact16871.html

6/7

11/28/2016

ConstitutionalValidityoftheHinduReligiousandCharitableEndowmentAct
ProspectiveVs.Retrospective
ReasonableClassificationunderarticle14
ConceptofWelfareStateandItsRelevanceinIndianScenario
VulnerableGroupsinIndiaStatus,Schemes,ConstitutionofIndia
ManekaGandhi
ElectionCommissionofIndia
EmergenceofArticle31A,BandCanditsvalidity
DoctrineofPleasureasundertheIndianConstitution
Hart
CriticalAnalysisonReservationPolicyinIndia
RevisionalPowervis
AnalysisOfWritOfMandamus

Mostrecentarticlesin ConstitutionalLaw category

Article44ofConstitution:ADeadLettertobeRetrieved
FundamentalRightofTheChildToEducationinAndamanAndNicobarIslands
TransferPetitioninIndia
RoleofWritsInAdministrativeLaw
TheImportanceofArticle370
JudicialActivismandJudicialRestraint
FundamentalDutiesUnderArticle51A
IsPreambleaPartofConstitution
WritsInIndianConstitution
SecularismandConstitutionofIndia
TheconstitutionofNepal
ConstitutionalDisabilitywayforward?
HarmoniousandBeneficialConstruction.
Article35A:NecessitybutnotCharity
Antidefectionlawthechallenges
StateUnderIndianConstitution

Article Comments
Postedby PREMonOctober01,2014
helloeveryone.
iamconsultantbasedathyderabad.cananyoneguidemewithinformationregardinghindurelegious
endowmentactrules.haveadoubtthatcanwetakeonrentalbasisfromNGOTOUSETHEIRLANDFOR
TRAININGPURPOSE?IFYESHOWCANWEDOIT.PLEASEMAILMETOMYEMAILREGARDINGABOVE
QUERRY.

Post Your Comments

Name

Note:Youremailaddressisonlyvisibletoadmin,
othermembers/userscannotseeit.

YoucanusefollowingFXCodes

Email
Yourcomments

BOLD:[b]
Italic:[i]
[b]LegalServicesIndia[/b]isa[i]nicewebsite[/i].
[url=http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/]click
heretovisit.[/url]

LegalServicesIndia isanicewebsite.
Clickheretovisit

Typethetext
Privacy&Terms

Postnow

Note:Currently,usercommentsaremoderatedandwillbepostedonlyafterapproval.

LawyersinIndia ClickonalinkbelowforlegalServices
lawyersin Delhi
lawyersinMumbai
lawyersinChandigarh
lawyersinPune
lawyersinAllahabad
lawyersinNagpur
lawyersinLucknow
lawyersinAhmedabad
lawyersinJodhpur
lawyersinSurat
Faridabadlawyers
Ghaziabadlawyers

lawyersinChennai
lawyersinBangalore
lawyersinHyderabad
lawyersinCochin
lawyersinPondicherry
lawyersinGuwahati
lawyersinNashik

lawyersinKolkata
lawyersinJanjgir
lawyersinRajkot
lawyersinIndore
lawyersinLudhiana
Gurgaonlawyers

lawyersinJaipur
lawyersinNewDelhi
lawyersinDimapur
lawyersinAgra
Noidalawyers
lawyersinSiliguri

ForMutualconsentDivorcein
Delhi
Phno:9650499965

TOP
Home|AboutUs |Privacy |Termsofuse |Divorcebymutualconsent |Lawyers |Submitarticle |SCJudgments |ContactUs

India'sMostTrustedOnlinelawlibrary
LegalServicesIndiaisCopyrightedundertheRegistrarofCopyrightAct(GovtofIndia)20002016
ISBNNo:9788192851013

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/constitutionalvalidityofthehindureligiousandcharitableendowmentact16871.html

7/7