The provision excluding women from trustee succession in religious institutions violates Articles 14 and 15, leading to its declaration as unconstitutional.

ORDER :

Alok Aradhe, C.J.

Mr. M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. P.Venugopal, learned Amicus Curiae.

Mr. Herur Rajesh Kumar, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner No.1 has assailed the validity of Explanation II of Proviso to Section 17 (1) of the TELANGANA CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENTS ACT , 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. The factual background in which the challenge to the validity of the aforesaid provision needs mention, which is stated infra.

4. The petitioner No.1 claims to be successor-in-interest to the family of late Sri Kishan Prasad, who was instrumental in building a number of temples in and around Hyderabad and according to the petitioner No.1, the Jagir of late Sri Kishan Prasad was extended upto 196 villages and the petitioner No.1 has right to manage Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple at Shaikpet Village. The said Temple has been registered under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner No.1 submitted an application before the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad as a Member of the Founder’s family. However, the application submitted by the petitioner No.1 was returned in view of the prohibition contained in Section 17 of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner No.1 has assailed the validity of Explanation II of Proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act.

5. During pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.1 died and her daughter has been brought on record as her legal representative and is arrayed as petitioner No.2.

6. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that Section 17 of the Act was amended by Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2002 Act’) and Explanation II of proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act was incorporated. However, no reasons are forthcoming from the perusal of statement of objects and reasons. It is also submitted that in view of Explanation II of proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act, a female member of the family of the founder is excluded from being considered as member of the family of the founder. It is further submitted that men and women are equal and therefore, Explanation II of proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act is unconstitutional and offends the mandate contained in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned provision is contrary to the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and is discriminatory. It is contended that aforesaid provision offends fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that impugned provision is contrary to the object of the Act.

8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 has submitted that Explanation II of proviso to Section 17 (1) of the Act includes woman as member of the family of the founder. Our attention has also been invited to the definition of the expression ‘hereditary trustee’ and ‘person having interest’ as defined under Sections 2(16) and 2(18) of the Act. It is also submitted that the validity of Section 17 of the Act has already been upheld by the Supreme Court. In support of his submissions, reference has been made to Single Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in P. Ashok Gajapathi Raju vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh , 2021 (4) ALD 545 and the decision of Supreme Court in Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. Sta