Holding

Sections 15, 16, 17, 29(5) and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 are constitutionally valid and do not violate Articles 14, 15, 25 or 26.

Summary

The petitioners, hereditary trustees of several Hindu charitable and religious institutions in Andhra Pradesh, challenged Sections 15, 16, 17, 29(5) and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, alleging violations of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The State argued that the provisions were enacted to remedy mismanagement identified by the Challa Kondaiah Commission and that administration of religious institutions is a secular activity subject to regulation. The Court held that the Act’s objective of efficient, collective management is a public purpose and that the abolition of hereditary trusteeship and the appointment scheme do not infringe religious freedom, being permissible under Article 25(2). It further ruled that the requirement that the board be headed by the founder or a family member is a reasonable safeguard and that Section 144, which abolishes certain traditional shares, is a valid legislative measure. Consequently, all the challenged provisions were upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The constitutionality of Sections 15, 16, 17, 29(5) and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 in view of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Whether the abolition of hereditary trusteeship violates the right to manage religious affairs under Article 26.
Whether the scheme of appointing a board of trustees, with the requirement that it be headed by the founder or a family member, is permissible.
Whether Section 144, which abolishes traditional shares and emoluments, is ultra vires the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987s. 144, s. 15, s. 16, s. 17, s. 29(5)

Subjects

Constitutional lawReligious freedomArticle 25Article 26Article 14Article 15Hereditary trusteeshipCharitable institutionsBoard of trusteesSecular administrationReading downLegislative competence

Judgment

PANNALAL BANSILAL PITT! AND ORS. ETC. A
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JANUARY 17, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Relirjous Institutions and En-
dowment Act, 1987:

Section 15-Hindu Charitable or Relirjous Institutions-Appointment C
of Board of Trustee-Scheme for-Held seeks to achieve a public pur-
pose-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.
E
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 F
integrity.

Articles 25 and 26-Right to relirjon-Freedorn to manage relirjous
affairs-Right to profess, practice and propagate relirjon-Scope and extent
of
G
Interpretation of Statutes .
. ' Statute-Provisions-Constitutionality of-Doctrine of reading
down-Applicability of

Words & Phrases-Charity-Meaning of H
603
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A 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~
B
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 institu-
tions 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 can-
D not make law to appoint its officers or servants to manage the religious
institutions or endowments; (iv) without factual foundation of any mis-
management or misutilisation of the funds of Hindu religious and
charitable institutions or endowments abolition of the trusteeship is ar-
bitrary, 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]
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 con- B
secrated and installed in temples and to religious institutions of every
t
kind. A Hindu who has founded a religious or charitable institution or
endowment has a fundamental right to administer it in accordance with
law; and so, the law must leave the right of administration to the religious
denomination or general body itself, subject to the restrictions and regula- C
!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 consis-
tent 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
7. Hereditary principle being inconsistent with Article 15(1), the legis-
lature 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
B Hindu religious institutions or l!'ndowments, the object of the endowment
etc. thereby getting defeated. With a view to remedy the same and to effec-
tuate 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 collec-
tive proper and efficient administration and governance of the institution
and endowment. The abolition of the right to hereditary trusteeship, there-
fore, 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 respon-
E 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
such responsibility to a single individual, Section 15 was brought on
F 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 institu-
tions 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 endow-
ment 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 gover-
nance thereof. Law regulates appropriately for efficient management or
administration or governance of charitable and Hindu religious institu- C
tions or endowments or specific endowments, through its officers or of-
ficers 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
y
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

12. Reading down the provisions of an Act is a settled principle of
B interpretation so as to sustain their constitutionality, as well as for effec-
tuation 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]

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
F 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]
G
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.
P.B. P!Tflv. STATE[K RAMASWAMY,J.] 609

-.l
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.
B
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 c
appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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, 11 the Act11) .
E
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
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 perfor- H
y'

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
counsels S/Shri H.S. Gurujarao, AK. Ganguli, R. Venugopala Reddy, M.N.
E
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 con-
tentions on behalf of the State and also submitted his written arguments.

F 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
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 in-
stitutions 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
c
or the party like the State to determine as to which activity is essential part
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 endow-
ments 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 E
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 legisla-
ture cannot make law to appoint its officers or servants to manage the
religious institutions or endowments. Abolition of hereditary trusteeship
F
totally deprives the right to practise charity or to render charitable service
or to establish religious institutions as a part of religious charitable disposi-
tion or religious practice, which offends right to religious practice guaran-
teed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It is further contended
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 endow- H
y
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 main-
tain 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 ap- .,.
.
propriate, 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 t
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 chairman-
ship 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 endow-
ment 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 trus-
tees, 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.
P.B. PITTiv. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY.J.] 613

-J
Shri P.P. Rao, the learned counsel for the State, resisted these A
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
B
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
not been interfered with by the Act. On the other hand, they are specifically c
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 E
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 in-
stitutions or endowments established by persons belonging to other F
religions. It could be done in a phased manner, wherever.evils are pointed
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 main- G
' 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 SUPREME COURT REP OR TS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A "15. Appointment of Board of Tntstees : 1.--<-

(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 Govern-
ment shall constitute a Board of trustees consisting of nine persons
B 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.

c (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 endow- '
D ment 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
E 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 com-
promise or agreement entered into or scheme framed or judgment,
F 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 dharamakar-
ta or muntazim or by whatever name it is called shall stand
abolished on such commencement.
G
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
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. B
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(4) No person shall be a trustee in more than one Board of
Trustees.
,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
F
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; G
(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;

Provided that such deposit may be made in the treasury if the rate H
y

616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19%] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 institu-
B tion 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 :

c 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 institu-
D tion 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
E
discharge the duties of an Executive Officer.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

144. Aboliti011 of shares i11 Hundi andnther msums :- Notwithstand-
F ing 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 com-
G mencement 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
H in the lands of the institution or endowment allotted. or allowed to
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
B

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 c
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 devol-
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 there-
of. "Religious institution" defined in Section 2(23), means a math, temple
or specific endowment and includes a Brindavan, Samadhi or any other F
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 Commis-
sioner 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 there- H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R: •·

A under. Section 16, with a 11011 obstante clause, abolishes hereditary trus-
teeship. 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 accord-
ance 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 administra- '
tion 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 endow-
ments. 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 Con-
stitution 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 Constitu-
tion 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. 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. It would, therefore, be inex·
pedient and incorrect to think that all laws have to be made uniformly D
applicable to all people in one go. The mischief or defect which is most
acute can be remedied by process of law at stages.

The second question is : whether abolition of hereditary trusteeship
violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Article 25(1) assures,
subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of E
Chapter III that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience
and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. Sub-clause
(2) of Article 25 saves the operation of the existing law and also frees the
State from Article 25(1) to make any law regulating or restricting any
economic, financial, political or other secular activity, which may be as· F
sociated with religious practice. Equally, law may provide for social welfare
and reform, the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public
character to all classes and sections of the society. Articles 26 gives
freedom to manage religious affairs, subject to public order, morality and
health, every religious denomination or any section thereof to establish
institutions for religious and charitable purpose, to manage its own affairs G
in matters of religion, to own and acquire movable and immovable property
and to administer such property in accordance with law.

Contents of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution have been con·
sidered in several decisions starting from Shintr Mutt case (infra) and have H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A been placed beyond controversy. The first principle laid is that the protec-
tion of these articles is not limited to matters of doctrine or belief. They
extend also to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore a guarantee
four rituals and observances, ceremonies and motive of worship which are
integral parts of religion. The second principle is that what constitutes an
essential part of religion or religious properties has to be decided by the
B Courts with a reference to the doctrine of particular religion and includes
practices which are regarded by the community as a part of its religion.

In The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri
.,
Lakshmindra Thiltha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, [1954] S.C.R. 1005, known
C as Shirur Mutt case, this Court had held that the language of Article 25
indicates to secure to every person subject to public order, health and
morality, a freedom not only to entertain such religious belief, as may be
approved of by his judgment and conscience, but also to exhibit his belief
in such outward acts as he thinks proper and to propagate or disseminate
D his ideas for the edification of others. It is the propagation of belief that is
protected, no matter whether the propagation takes place in a church, or
monastery or in a temple or parlour meeting. At page 1023, it was held
that the word "religion" has not been defined in the Constitution and it is
a term which is hardly susceptible of any rigid definition. Religion is
certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not
E necessarily theistic. Religion, undoubtedly, has its basis in a system of
beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion
conducive to their spiritual well being. A religion inay not only lay down a
code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals
and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship etc. Guarantee under
F the Constitution not only protects the freedom of religious denomination
but it also protects ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded
as integral parts of religion; and the forms and observations might extend
even to interests of food and dress. What Article 25(2)(a) contemplates is
not regulation by the State of religious practices as such, the freedom of
which is guaranteed by the Constitution. The guarantee is in-built to every
G religion to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable
purposes and their management in matters of religion to own and acquire
movable and immovable properties. But they are subject to Article 25 and
other provisions of the Constitution.

H Founding a temple or a charitable institution is an act of religious
'
1
P.B. PIT!lv. STATE[KRAMASWAMY,J.] 621

duty and has all the aspect of Dharma. A
BIG PRARSARA SMRITI

10th Chapter, Sloks 1, 2 and 3 indicates as under

"Let me describe the charities with the procedures, narrated by B
·Sage Parasara to Veda Vyasa :

1. By charity one can go to heaven.

2. By charity one enjoys peace.

3. Here and there (in this and other world), the one who did charity
c
will be respected.

4. There is no better religious duty in all the three worlds than doing
charity. ·
' D
5. Therefore, charity to be practiced as far as possible

MANUSMRITI

4Th Chapter Sloka 227, 228
E
1. One should practice charity daily with a pleasant heart to the
deserving, as far as he can. Offering charity is real worship of the
God without the elaborate procedure of having sacrificial fire lit
etc. '
2. At least something should be given in charity when sought as F
one of the many beneficiaries may lift the donor from going to
hell."

Bhagwat Geeta and some of the Smrities extol and motivate charity
for spiritual well being as is shown hereunder :
G
"J. BHAGWAD GEETA - CHAPTER 18

Yagya Dana Tapa Kam1a, Na Tyajyam, Karyamev Yat.

The Ygnya, charity and Tapas are never to be given up; in fact
all these three things are to be strictly observed on a continuous H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.

A basis. These are the most sacred acts which makes the man pure.

2. VYAS SMRITHI - CHAPTER W - SLOKA 15-17

I am discribing the Dana Dharma as detailed by Vyasa. What
one gives daily as charity and what one enjoys daily is the only
B wealth one has as his: The other is the wealth meant for some one
else. For, some one else will be enjoying with his wealth and even
his wife, when the man dies.

3. KAP/LA SMRITHI - SLOKA 427

c Charity shall be done by all; especially when one has the means
he should do charity without fail on every occasions."

Hindu Piety found expression in establishing temples, creation of
endowments or specific endowments, by gifts to idols and images con-
D secrated and installed in temples and to religious institutions of every kind.
The word 'charity' in a legal sense includes every gift for educational, a
general public use, to be applied consistent with existing laws for the
benefit of an indefinite number of persons and designed to benefit them
from a religious, moral, physical or social stand-point-vide Black's .Law
Dictionary at page 233. Therefore, every Hindu imbued with religious or
E charitable disposition and pious wish would create or establish a charitable
or religious institution or endowment or specific endowments for general
public use to be applied consistent with the law for the benefit of an ,
indefmite number of people or persons and designed to benefit the
religious, moral and social stand-point equally of educational stand-point.
F Therefore, a Hindu who has founded a religious or charitable institution
or endowment has a fundamental right to administer it in accordance with
law; and so, the law must leave the right of administration to the religious
denomination or general body itself, subject to the restrictions and regula-
tions as the law might chose to impose. In Shirur Mutt case (supra), this
Court held at page 1029 that a law which takes away the right to administra-
G tion to the religious denomination altogether and vests it in any other
authority would amount to a violation of the right guaranteed under clause y

(d) of Article 26. So, a law would not totally divest the administration of a
religious institution or endowment, but the State has general right to
regulate the eight to administration -of a religious or charitable institution
H or endowment; and such a law may chose to impose such restrictions
P.B. PITI1 v. STATE [K RAMASWAMY, J.] 623

whereof as are felt most acute and provide a remedy therefor. A

Jn Rati/a/ Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay & Ors., [1954]
S.C.R. 1055 at page 1063, this Court further had pointed out the distinction
between clauses (b) and (d) of Article 26 thus : in regard to affairs in
matters of religion the right of management given to a religious body is a
guaranteed fundamental right which no legislation can take away. On the
B
other hand, as regards administration of property which a religious
denomination is entitled to own and acquire, it has undoubtedly the right
to administer such property, but only in accordance with law. This means
that the State can regulate the administration of trust properties by means
of laws validly enacted; but here again it should be remembered that under c
Article 26(b), it is the religious denomination or general body of religion
itself which has been given the right to administer its property in accord-
ance with any law which the State may validly impose. A law, which takes
away the right of administration altogether from the religious denomination
and vests it in other or secular authority, would amount to violation of the D
right which is guaranteed by Article 26( d) of the Constitution. In that case,
the Court found that the exercise of the power by the Charity Commis-
sioner or the Court to divert the trust property or funds for purposes which
he or it considered expedient or proper, although the original objects of
the founder can still be carried out, was an unwarranted encroachment on
the freedom of religious institutions in regard to the management of their E
religious affairs.

It would thus be clear that the right to establish a religious institution
or endowment is a part of religious belief or faiths, but its administration
is a secular part which would be regulated by law appropriately made by F
the legislature. The regulation is only in respect of the administration of
the secular part of the religious institution or endowment, and not of
beliefs, tenets, usages and practices, which are integral part of that religious
belief or faith.

It is true that Section 16 of the Act, which has been reproduced G
earlier, abolishes the hereditary right in trusteeship but not the right to
trusteeship itself. It is obvious that Section 18 itself 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- H
-~
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R. ' ...
- ~·

A hereditary trustees. Though hereditary right is a part of the right to

•
administer the Hindu religious or charitable Institution or endowment
under the Predecessor Act 1966, it is seen that Justice Challa Kondaiah
Commission, which is a store-house for the legislature to find the existence
of evils or mischief in the administration and governance of charitable and
B Hindu religious institutions or endowments and which the legislature has
taken cognizance of while making the law at hand, had pointed out the
acute need to provide remedy. Words are the skin of the language. The
language opens up the bay of the maker's mind. The Legislature gives its
own meaning and interpretation of the law. ·It does so employing ap-
propriate phegeology to attain the object of legislative policy which it seeks
C to achieve.

Section 16 with a 11on obsta11te clause abolishes the hereditary right·
in trusteeship of a charitable and Hindu religious institutions or endow-
ments. It is settled law that the legislature within its competence, may
D 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 the mischief the legislature
felt most acute. Section 16, therefore, applying non obstallte clause, altered
E the operation of any compromise, agreement entered into. or a scheme
framed or a judgment, decree or order passed by any court, tribunal or
other authority or any deed or other document prior to the Act. The
pre-existing hereditary right in trusteeship in the office of the hereditary
trustee, mutawalli, dharmakaitha or muntazim or by whateYer name .it is
F called and abolished the same prospectively from the date of the commen-
cement of the Act. Article 15(1) of the Constitution prohibits discrimina-
tion against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place
of birth or any of them.

Sections 17 to 19 recognise general right to every qualified H.indu to
G claim appointment as trustee. Section 16 intends to remove discrimination
on grounds of heredity which otherwise is violative of Article 15(1). Article
13 declares such inconsistent custom as void. The Predecessor Act 1966
recognised customary right, which the legislature has power to take away
such recogn.ition and order every eligible Hindu to be considered for
H appointment as trustee in the manner prescribed by law. Hereditary prin-
P.B.PITTiv. STATE[K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 625

ciple being inconsistent with Article 15(1), the legislature thought it fit to A
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
institution.' or endowments, the object of the .endowment etc. thereby
getting defeated. With a view to remedy the same and to effectuate proper
B
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 Section 15, 17,
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 c
collective proper and efficient admini,tration and governance of the institu-
tion and endowment. The abolition of the right to hereditary trusteeship,
therefore, cannot be declared to be unconstitutional.
'
Chapter III relates to administration and management of charitable D
and Hindu religious institutions and endowments, as its heading indicates.
By operation of Scheme 14 all properties belonging to or given or endowed
to a charitable or religious institution or endowment shall vest in that
institution. A scheme has been evolved therein first to abolish the
hereditary right in trusteeship. That has been accomplished under Section
16. As a corollary, the management and governance was entrusted to the E
trustees and the board of trustees as a representative body. It is already
held that the scheme for appointment of the trustees and constitution of
the board of trustees 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 respon- F
sibility to the board of trustees appointed under Section 15. Section 15
makes a distinction in respect of the charitable or religious institutions or
endowments covered by clauses (a) to (c) of Section 6 as distinct classes.
In respect of the charitable or religious institutions or endowments covered
by clause (a) of Section 6 whose annual income is Rs. 10 lakhs and above, G
the board of trustees consisting of 9 persons shall be appointed under
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15. The appointing authority of such
board of trustees shall be the Government. In case the income does not
exceed Rs. 10 lakhs, the Commissioner has been given power to appoint
board of trustees consisting of 7 persons. In respect of charitable or
religious institutions or endowments included in the list published under H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.

A clause (b) of Section 6, the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction has
been empowered to constitute a board of trustees consisting of 7 person
as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 15. In the case of charitable
or religious institutions or endowments included in the list published under
clause (c) of Section 6, the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction has
B been empowered to appoint trustees and constitute board of trustees
consisting of five persons. In the case of charitable or religious Institutions
or endowment covered by clause (c) Section 6, obviously based upon the
factual matrix, in the interest of the institution or endowment or for any
other sufficient_ cause after recording reasons in writing, the Assistant
Commissioner is empowered by the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section
C 15 to appoint a single trustee to a charitable or religious institution or
endowment instead of appointing and constituting a board of trustees. It
could be seen that the scheme. of appointment of the trustees and appoint-
ment and constitution of the board of the trustees being an integral part
and having evolved policy to entrust collective- responsibility of manage- i
D men! and administration of charitable and religious institution or endow-
ment instead of entrusting such responsibility to a single individual, Section
15 was brought on statute to effectuate the said policy. The legislative
competence is not questioned. 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
E or endoWments to effectuate efficient and proper management and gover-
nance of the said institutions. Accordingly, we are of the considered view
that abolition of the 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. It cannot further be held that either Section 15 or Section
F
16 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.

But immediate question is whether taking away of the management
and vesting the same in the board of non-hereditary trustees, constituted
under Section 15, is valid in law. It is seen that the perennial and perpetual
G source to establish or create any religious or charitable institution or
endowment or a specific endowment is the charitable disposition of a pious
person or other benevolent motivating factors, but to the benefit of indeter-
minate number of people having the common religious faith and belief
which the founder espouses. Even a desire to perpetuate the memory of
H an philanthropist or a pious person or a member of the family or founder
P.B. PIIT!v. STATE [K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 627

himself may be the motive to establish a religious or charitable institution A
or endowment or specific endowment. Total deprivation of its estab-
lishment and registration and take over of such bodies by the State would
dry up such sources or acts of pious or charitable disposition and act as
disincentive to the common detriment.
B
Hindus are majority in population and Hinduism is a major religion.
While Articles 25 and 26 granted religious freedom to minority religions
like Islam, Christianity and Judaism, they do not intend to deny the same
guarantee to Hindus. Therefore, protection under Articles 25 and 26 is
available to the people professing Hindu religion, subject to the law there-
in. The right to establish a religious and charitable institution is a part of C
religious belief or faith and, though law made under clause (2) of Article
25 may impose restrictions on the exercise of that right, the right 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 D
specific endowment being a secular activity, it is not an essential part of
religion and, therefore, the legislature is competent to enact law, 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 ad-
ministration and expend any public money for maintenance and gover- E
nance thereof. Law regulates appropriately for efficient management or
administration or governance of charitable and Hindu religious institutions
or endowments or specific endowments, through its officers or officers
appointed under the Act.
F
The question then is whether legislative declaration of the need for
maintenance, administration and governance of all charitable and Hindu
religious institutions or endowments or specific endowments and taking
over the same and vesting the management in a trustee or board of trustees
is valid in law. It is true, as rightly contended by Shri P.P. Rao, that the G
'( legislature acting on the material collected by Justice Challa Kondaiah
Commission amended and repealed the Predecessor Act 1966 and brought
the Act on statute. Section 17 of the Predecessor Act of 1966 had given
power to a hereditary trustee to be the chairman of the board of non-
hereditary trustee. Though abolition of hereditary right in trusteeship
under Section 16 has already been upheld, the charitable and religious H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.

A institution or endowment owes its existence to the founder or members of
the family who would resultantly evince greater and keener responsibility
and interest in its proper and efficient management and governance. The
autonomy in this behalf is an assurance to achieve due fulfilment of the
objective with which it was founded unless, in due course, foul in its
B management is proved. Therefore, so long as it is properly and efficiently
managed, he is entitled to due freedom of management in terms of the
deed of endowment or established practice or usage. In case a board of
trustees is constituted, the right to preside over the board given to the
founder or any member of his family would generate feeling to actively
participate, not only as a true representative of the source, but the same
C also generate greater influence in proper and efficient management of the
charitable or religious institution or endowment. Equally, it enables him to
persuade other members to follow the principles, practices, tenets, customs
and sampradayams of the founder of the charitable or religious institution
or endowment or specific endowment. Mere membership along with
D others, many a times, may diminish the personality of the member of the
family. Even in case some funds are needed for repairs, improvement,
expansion etc., the board headed by the founder or his family member may •
raise funds from the public to do the needful, while the executive officer,
being a Government servant, would be handicapped or in some cases may
not even show interest or inclination in that behalf. With a view, therefore,
E to effectuate the object of the religious or charitable institution or endow-
ment or specific endowment and to encourage establishment 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 manage-
ment and governance would be salutary and effective. The founder or a
F 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.
It would add incentive to establish similar institutions.

Keeping this pragmatic perspective in consideration, the question
G that emerges is: whether Sections 17 and 29(5) are valid in law. 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. With the above in mind, we may examine the validity of
Sections 17 and 29(5). These statutory provisions are grounded on the
H findings of the report of Challa Kondaiah Commission, which indicated
.. l.
P.B.PITI1v. STATE[K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 629

mismanagement and misutilisation of funds of charitable and Hindu A
religious institutions and endowments in a big way. This is , however, a
general finding; and we are prepared to agree with the learned counsel for
the petitioners that all the charitable and religious institutions may not be
painted with the same brush. We have no doubt that there would be
charitable or relib<ious institutions in the State which are neither mis-
B
managed 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 same. Our 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.
c
Sections 17 and 29(5) cannot, therefore, be faulted. Whatever rigour
these sections have would be duly get softened by the requirement of the
board being headed by the founder or any of his family members, as the
case may be. Subject to this rider, we uphold the validity of these two
Sections.
D
The question then is : whether abolition of the emoluments under
Section 144 is unconstitutional? It is seen that the object of the Act is to
prevent misuse of the trust for personal benefit. It is founded on the report
of the aforesaid Commission. It is a matter of legislative wisdom and policy.
It is not the contention that the legislature has no competence to abolish E
the system of payment. As stated earlier, 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.
So, we are of the considered view that Section 144 is not unconstitutional
in relation to its application to charitable and religious institutions and
endowments. The scope and ambit of Section 144 would be fully discussed F
in Archaka cases, i.e., W.P. No. 638/87 & batch.

So, we uphold the validity of Sections 15, 16, 17, 29(5) and 144,
subject to the rider mentioned earlier qua Sections 17 and 29(5). The writ
petitiops and the transfer cases are disposed of accordingly. No costs. G
T.NA. Petitions disposed of.