Case Note & Summary
The case involved a constitutional challenge by hereditary trustees of various religious and charitable institutions and endowments in Andhra Pradesh against the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966. The appellants claimed the right to manage and administer the secular estate of the institutions of which they were hereditary trustees but never claimed proprietary or beneficial interest either in the corpus or in the usufruct of the estate. They challenged the validity of sections 15, 17, 27, 36 and 97 of the Act on the ground that these provisions were violative of Articles 19, 14, 25, 26 and 31 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the office of hereditary trustee was property but that the restrictions imposed by the various provisions of the Act were reasonable and in the interests of the public. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the central issue was whether the office of a hereditary trustee constituted property within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f) and whether the impugned provisions were unconstitutional. The Court examined the nature of the hereditary trustee's office and distinguished it from offices like shebait, matadhipathi or mahant where office and property are blended. A hereditary trustee with only a bare right to manage secular affairs was held to be in the same position as a dharmakarta or a mere manager or custodian, except that succession to the office is as of right. The Court held that such an office is not property under Article 19(1)(f). It also observed that even if the right constituted property, the restrictions imposed by the Act were reasonable and in the interest of the general public, given the reported mismanagement of endowment property and the need for better administration. The Court noted that under section 17 the hereditary trustee is not removed but is made chairman of the Board of Trustees and only secular matters are affected. The question whether some institutions were private or religious denominations under Article 26 was left open for the appropriate forum. The appeals were dismissed and the validity of the Act was upheld.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Office of Hereditary Trustee - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, ss. 15, 17, 27, 36, 97 - A hereditary trustee who claims only a bare right to manage and administer the secular estate of an institution, without proprietary or beneficial interest in corpus or usufruct, does not hold an office that is property under Article 19(1)(f). The position is analogous to a dharmakarta or mere manager, distinguishable from a shebait or mahant where office and property are blended. The observation in Sambudamurthi Mudaliar v. State of Madras that the office of a hereditary trustee is in the nature of property is obiter; Privy Council decisions on succession do not assist. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan and Raja Birakishore v. Orissa followed. Held that the office of such a hereditary trustee is not property under Article 19. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Reasonable Restrictions - Validity of Statutory Provisions - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, ss. 15, 17, 27, 36, 97 - Even if the right constituted property, the restrictions imposed by the provisions of the Act on hereditary trustees are reasonable and in the interest of the general public. The statute was enacted because a high-powered body reported mismanagement of endowment property by trustees. The power to appoint non-hereditary trustees or executive officers under ss. 15 and 27, even without mismanagement, is only for ensuring better and efficient administration. Under s. 17 the hereditary trustee is not removed but is made chairman of the Board of Trustees, and if more than one hereditary trustee, one is chairman by rotation. Only the secular aspect and not matters of religion is touched. Held that the impugned provisions are valid. (Paras 6-10) C) Constitutional Law - Religious Denominations - Article 26 - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 - The question whether some of the institutions were private or were religious denominations within Article 26 was left open for determination by the appropriate forum. No finding was recorded on that issue. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether office of hereditary trustee is property within meaning of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution; Whether provisions of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (ss. 15, 17, 27, 36, 97) are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26 or 31.
Final Decision
Supreme Court held office of hereditary trustee with bare right to manage and administer secular estate is not property within Art.19(1)(f); even if property, restrictions imposed by Act are reasonable and in public interest; Act upheld; questions of private or religious denomination left open.
Law Points
- Office of hereditary trustee with bare right to manage secular estate is not property under Article 19(1)(f)
- hereditary trustee is akin to dharmakarta or custodian
- not shebait or mahant
- restrictions imposed by Act are reasonable and in public interest
- power to appoint non-hereditary trustees and executive officers ensures better administration
- hereditary trustee is not removed but made chairman
- only secular aspect touched not religious matters
- question of private or religious denomination left open
