The central legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which disqualifies a person from being appointed as or from being a trustee of any religious institution if he is not a citizen of India, is constitutionally valid and falls within the legislative competence of the State.

Ms. 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 of 1984 with effect from 13.5.1984, 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 3.4.1923, 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 29.5.1956, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. initiated proceedings for framing the scheme. On 7.7.1957, 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 6.4.1963, the scheme dated 7.7.1957 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 1.2.1996, the Kadirkama Pandara Sannithi who was elected by the Varani Atheenam was recognized as Trustee. The incumbent died on 22.4.1987. On 11.8.1987 by G.O. Ms. No. 915 a fit person was temporarily appointed till a new trustee is nominated by the Varani Adheenam. On 24.8.1987, 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 18.7.1988 and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner. On 17.3.1999, the Deputy Commissioner appointed the first respondent as a fit person. On 30.10.1989, the Commissioner, HR&CE by a suo motu revision in 66 of 1989 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 25.4.1991, 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 ultra vires the Constitution. He referred to Entry 17 of the Union List viz., “citizenship, nationalisation and aliens” and