Judgment

SHAH, J. : In this group of appeals certified by the High Court of Madras under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution the validity of Ss 52(1)(f), 55, 76(1) and (2), 80, 81 and 82 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act XIX of 1951 as amended by Act XXVII of 1954 is impugned.

2. At Udipi in the South Kanara District there are eight Maths which are reputed to be founded by Shree Madhvacharya, an exponent of the dualistic philosophy. Each of these Maths is presided over by a Madadhipati Swami who is invariably a Brahmin Sanyasin. There exists another Math known as Shri Krishna Devaru Math of which the administration is carried on according to longstanding usage by the Swamis of the eight Maths in turn, each Swami administering for two years. There is also the Sri Kanchi Karnakoti Peetam math of which Shree Sankaracharya Swarnigai is the presiding head.

3. These ten appeals are directed against orders passed by the High Court of Madras refusing to declare the provisions aforesaid ultra vires the State Legislature.

4. In order to ensure proper management of Hindu religious endowments the Provincial Legislature of Madras enacted the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, II of 1927. The Act made diverse provisions for enforcing supervision over the management of Hindu endowments, and a Board was constituted for that purpose. In exercise of the authority under the Act several restrictions were placed upon the powers of the trustees of religious endowments, schemes were framed for administration thereof and executing officers were appointed to administer Maths and other religious endowments. An enquiry was commenced before the Hindu Religious Endowments Board for ascertaining whether in the interests of the Shirur Math (one of the eight Maths at Udipi) a scheme for the administration of the Math be framed, it being alleged that the affairs of the Math were mismanaged by the Swami. The Board being satisfied that a case for settling a scheme was made out served upon the Swami of the Math a draft scheme and called upon him to file his objections thereto. The Swami filed a petition in the High Court of Madras challenging the vires of Act II of 1927, and especially the provisions under which the scheme was sought to be framed. During the pendency of that petition, Act II of 1927, was repealed by the Madras Legislature and was substituted by Act XIX of 1951, enacting diverse provisions relating to the governance, management and administration of Hindu Religious Endowments. The Swami of Shirur Math obtained leave to amend the petition and challenged the validity of Act XIX of 1951 on the ground that the provisions thereof infringed his fundamental rights and that in any event certain provisions were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.

5. The High Court of Madras declared several provisions of the Act ultra vires, as infringing Arts. 19(1)(f), 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution. The Court also declared S. 76(1) ultra vires because the State Legislature had thereby assumed powers to legislate for levy of a tax on income of religious endowments which the State Legislature was incompetent to exercise. The State of Madras appealed against the order of the High Court. This Court declared invalid S.21 (provision authorising the Commissioner and his subordinates to enter premises of religious endowments or places of worship in the exercise of powers conferred or duties imposed by or under the Act), S. 30(2) (requiring the swamis to be guided by the instructions of the Commissioner or the Area Committee in the matter of incurring expenditure). S.31 (relating to expenditure of surplus income with the sanction of the Commissioner),S.55 (dealing with Mahant s powers over pathakanikas- personal gifts), S 55 (dealing with Commissioner s authority to require the trustees of the Endowments to appoint a Manager) and Ss.. 63 to 69 (relating to notification of religious institutions and invoking thereby certain penal consequences). This Co