Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 685
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
Government of Tamilnadu, rep. By its Secretary & Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and Charitable & Another
Versus
K. Sevanthinatha Pandarasannathi & Others
W.A.Nos.117 of 2006 and 2146 of 2005
Decided on : 06-03-2009
For the Petitioners: S. Ramasami, Addl. Adv. General, Mr. T. Chandrasekaran for HR&CE.
For the Respondents:R1, A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel, R. Subramaniam, Sudhakar, R2, R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel, V. Ayyaduri, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the broad interpretation of legislative competence under the Constitution, the application of Article 254(2) in relation to conflicting State and Central enactments, and the distinction between the rights of Hindu aliens and aliens professing other religions in the context of the administration of religious institutions.
Headnote:
Citizenship - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act 1959 - Section 26 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the amendment disqualifying a person from being appointed as or from being a trustee of any religious institution if not a citizen of India. The court analyzed the constitutional validity of the amendment, considering Entry 17 of the Union List and Entry 28 of List III. The court also examined the implications of the amendment on the rights of a foreigner and its impact on the administration of religious institutions. The court referred to various judgments and legal principles to determine the legislative competence and constitutionality of the amendment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the amendment of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act 1959, which disqualified a person from being appointed as or from being a trustee of any religious institution if not a citizen of India. The court analyzed the facts related to the appointment of trustees and the subsequent legal proceedings, including the objections raised against the appointment of a non-hereditary trustee and the subsequent modifications to the scheme. The court also considered the appointment and recognition of trustees, as well as the filing of writ petitions and civil suits related to the trustee appointments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment disqualifying non-citizens from being trustees of religious institutions was constitutional and fell within the legislative competence of the State. The court rejected the challenges to the amendment based on discrimination, singling out the respondent, and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court also upheld the validity of the amendment in relation to Article 254(2) of the Constitution and the distinction between Hindu aliens and aliens professing other religions. The court concluded that the amendment primarily dealt with the administration of religious institutions and was within the legislative competence of the State.
Issues: The issues before the court included the constitutional validity of the amendment disqualifying non-citizens from being trustees of religious institutions, the legislative competence of the State to enact such a provision, and the implications of the amendment on the rights of foreigners and the administration of religious institutions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legislative competence under Entry 17 of the Union List and Entry 28 of List III, the application of Article 254(2) of the Constitution, and the distinction between the rights of Hindu aliens and aliens professing other religions. The court also considered the incidental encroachment of the amendment into the field covered by List I and the broad interpretation of the scope of various entries in the legislative lists.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the writ appeals, upholding the constitutional validity of the amendment disqualifying non-citizens from being trustees of religious institutions.
Prabha Sridevan, J.
The Government amended the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act 1959 (H.R. & C.E. Act in short) by adding clause (aaa) to Section 26 by Act 30/84 with effect from 13-05-1984, disqualifying a person from being appointed as or from being a trustee of any religious institution if he is not a citizen of India. This clause was challenged by the writ petitioner with success and therefore, the State has filed this appeal.
2. The facts are as follows:
On 03-04-1923, the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Nos.121 and 122 of 1919 framed a scheme for administration of the Temple of Arulmighu Vedaranyaswamy Devasthanam. Clause 3 of the said decree vested the trusteeship of the Temple with Varani Adheenam consisting of a group of persons residing in Karanavai in the District of Jaffna, Ceylon as it was then called. Clause 5 of the decree vests the administration of the Devasthanam and all its affairs on the Managing Trustee appointed by the Varani Adheenam from among themselves. On 29-05-1956, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. &
C.E. initiated proceedings for framing the scheme. On 07-07-1957, the draft scheme was settled and its properties were vested in the hereditary trustee. There was objection to the appointment of the non-hereditary trustee. It was dropped and the hereditary trustee was also given the power to choose the Executive Officer. On 06-04-1963, the scheme dated 07-07-1957 was modified in O.A.No.60 of 1960. The administration continued to be with the hereditary trustee and the power to select Executive Officer was also preserved. On 01-02-1996, the Kadirkama Pandara Sannithi who was elected by the Varani Atheenam was recognized as Trustee. The incumbent died on 24. 1987. On 11-08-1987 by G.O.Ms.No.915 a fit person was temporarily appointed till a new trustee is nominated by the Varani Adheenam. On 24-08-1987, the Varani Adheenam addressed a letter intimating that he had nominated K. Seventhinatha Pandarasannithi as the Trustee. On 23-12-1987, the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE recognised the above nomination. The appeal, A.P.No.1 of 1988 filed by one Kumaraswami Pandara Sannithi challenging the appointment of Seventhinatha Pandarasannithi as hereditary trustee was allowed on 18-07-1988 and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner. On 17-03-1999, the Deputy Commissioner appointed the first respondent as a fit person. On 30-10-1989, the Commissioner, HR&CE by a suomotu revision in 66/89 set aside the order of appointment of the respondent as a fit person. Against this a revision was filed under Section 114 which was also dismissed on 31-12-1990. Challenging this, W.P.No.2801 of 1991 was filed. The writ petition was dismissed and the learned Single Judge held that this was a fit case where the petitioner had to approach a Civil Court for a decision as to who has been validly elected. On 25-04-1991, the first respondent filed O.S.No.190 of 1991 seeking a declaration that he is a properly elected trustee. The rival claimant submitted to the decree. The suit was decreed. On 15-10-1991, the request of the first respondent for being recognised as a Managing Trustee was rejected by the Deputy Commisisoner. The first respondent thereupon filed R.P.No.39 of 1991 before the HR & CE which was dismissed. On 28-10-1992, Varani Adheenam again appointed the first respondent as Managing Trustee. On 31-12-1993, the amendment came into force which disqualified the first respondent from being a trustee since he is not a citizen of India. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground of discrimination. Aggrieved by the same, the writ appeals are filed both by the State and the third respondent.
3. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent who is the writ petitioner submitted that the amendment is ultravires the Constitution. He referred to Entry 17 of the Union List viz., "citizenship, nationalisation and aliens" and submitte
