The central legal point established in the judgment is the legislative competence to validate acts done under a previous enactment and the interpretation of the jurisdiction and powers of the Religious Endowment Board.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. These are suits filed by the respective plaintiffs against the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, for a declaration that Madras Act I of 1925 is not valid and that the defendants have no right to act as a legally constituted Board and not entitlld to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the Board of Commissioners under the said Act, for an injunction restraining them from exercising all or any of the powers under the Act against the plaintiffs and for other reliefs.

2. In some suits there is an alternative prayer that even if the Act is valid, it does not apply to the institutions referred to in those plaints.

3. The grounds on which Madras Act I of 1925 is said to be invalid are set out in the plaints.

4. After the institution of these suits, Madras Act II of 1927 was passed. This Act by Section 6 repealed the Hindu Religious Endowment Act I of 1925 and by Section 7 validated certain Acts done under that Act.

5. Section 7 runs as follows:

(i) "All action taken and all things done including the constitution of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, the notifications issued and orders made under and in pursuance of the said Act shall be deemed to have been validly taken, done, issued or made.

(ii) All proceedings taken under the said Act may be continued under this Act in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

(iii) Any remedy by way of application, suit or appeal which is provided by this Act shall be available in respect of proceedings under the said Act pending at the time of the commencement of this Act as if the proceedings in respect of which the remedy is sought had been instituted under this Act.

6. It is contended for the plaintiffs that Section 7 of Madras Act II of 1927 is ultra vires as Madras Act I of 1925 was invalid as it did not comply with the provisions of the Government of India Act.

7. Another contention which arises in Suit No. 424 of 1926 is that Section 84 of Act II of 1927 does not give the Religious Endowment Board jurisdiction where the public nature of the temple is disputed or where there is no temple within the definition of the word temple in Section 9(12).

8. It is also contended that even if Section 7 is valid, the Religious Endowment Board is not properly constituted as there has been no notification issued by the Government as required by Section 10.

9. By consent of parties these questions were treated as preliminary issues.

10. It is argued by Mr. Rangachari for the plaintiffs that Madras Act I of 1925 is not a valid Act as it was not passed in accordance with the provisions of the Government of India Act of. 1919 and that it was not competent for the local Legislature to validate the act or acts done under that Act by any subsequent enactment as it would virtually be doing indirectly what the law prohibits to be done directly. For the purpose of this argument I shall assume that Madras Act I of 1925 was invalid and it is, therefore, not necessary for me to discuss the various reasons given in the plaints and the question is, where an Act of a Subordinate Legislature is invalid owing to the non-compliance of certain conditions required by an Act of Parliament which constitutes the Subordinate Legislature, whether the passing of a fresh enactment which complies with the requirements of the Imperial Act and which is validly passed and which validates acts done or Boards appointed under the provisions of the Act would be ultra vires of the Legislature and invalid.

11. There can be little doubt that a Subordinate Legislature constituted by an Imperial Act of Parliament is, so far as matters within its competence are concerned, supreme. I need only refer to the following observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Empress v. Burah (1878) I.L.R. 4 C. 172 at 180 : L.R. 5 I.A. 178 (P.C.):

The Indian Legislature has powers expressly limited by the Act of the Imperial Parliament which