Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 40404
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J SREENIVAS RAO, J, ALOK ARADHE, CJ
RANI SANTHOSH SAINCHER SECBAD. – Appellant
Versus
PRL.SECY. REV. AND 3 ORS. – Respondent
WP/34663/2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Vidyasagar
For the Respondents: Herur Rajesh Kumar
Explanation II to Section 17(1) of the Act, which restricts succession to the office of trustee to agnatic male heirs, is arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14; the offending words are severed, allowing female members of the founder's family to be considered.
Headnote:(A) Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Section 17(1) - Explanation II - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 15 - Hindu law - Hereditary trusteeship - Exclusion of female members of founder's family from definition of 'member of the family of the founder' - Validity.
(B) Hindu law - Female succession to religious offices - Recognized - A female member is a Class I heir under Hindu Succession Act - Distinction based on gender in succession to office of trustee is arbitrary and discriminatory - No intelligible differentia - No rational relation to object of giving representation to founder.
(C) Severability - Impugned words 'and so in agnatic line of succession for the time being in force' are separable from rest of Explanation - Striking down these words leaves valid part intact - Female members included.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, claiming to be a successor-in-interest to the founder's family, sought to be recognized as a member of the founder's family for appointment as trustee of a temple. Her application was returned in view of Explanation II to Section 17(1) of the Act, which defined 'member of the family of the founder' as children, grandchildren, and so in agnatic line of succession, thereby excluding female members. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Explanation II.
Findings of Court:
The court held that Explanation II, insofar as it restricted succession to the agnatic line, was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14. It found no intelligible differentia to exclude female members, and no rational relation to the object of providing representation to the founder. Referring to Hindu law and precedent, the court noted that Hindu law does not prohibit female succession to religious offices. The court also applied the principle of severability, holding that the offending words could be struck down, leaving the rest of Explanation II valid, thereby including female members.
Issues: The main issue was whether Explanation II of the proviso to Section 17(1) of the Act, which confined succession to male agnatic heirs, was unconstitutional for offending Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The classification based on gender in succession to hereditary trusteeship is arbitrary and discriminatory, as it lacks an intelligible differentia and has no rational relation to the object of the provision. Hindu law permits female succession to religious offices. The offending words are severable, and their striking down does not affect the rest of the provision.
Result: Writ petition allowed. The words 'and so in agnatic line of succession for the time being in force' in Explanation II to Section 17(1) of the Act are declared ultra vires the Constitution and struck down. No order as to costs.
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO + WRIT PETITION No.34663 of 2011 % Date:29.11.2024 # Smt. Rani Santhosh Saincher, died per LR Smt. Shalini Saincher … Petitioner v.
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments)
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. M. Vidyasagar ^ Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Herur Rajesh Kumar Learned Government Pleader for Endowments Learned Amicus Curiae : Mr. P.Venugopal < GIST:
HEAD NOTE:
? CASES REFERRED:
1. 2021 (4) ALD 545 2. (1996) 2 SCC 498 3. (1996) 2 SCC 498 4. AIR 1955 SC 493 5. (1978) 3 SCC 236 6. AIR 1985 SC 905
7. (1952) 1 SCC 1 : AIR 1952 SC 75
10. (2023) 5 SCC 1
11. (2024) 5 SCC 217 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 162
12. 1957 SCC OnLine SC 11
13. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3129 ::2::
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.34663 of 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
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 ::3::
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 ::4::
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
