Case Note & Summary
The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from a constitutional challenge to the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 by the managing trustee of a public religious trust of the Swaminarayan Sampraday at Vadtal. The appellant, as Acharya and managing trustee, held Devasthan Inam lands on behalf of the trust. The Act, which came into force on November 15, 1969, extended to the Bombay area of Gujarat and abolished certain Devasthan inams, making the lands liable to land revenue. Section 5 abolished the inams with their incidents, Section 8 vested public roads, lanes, tracks, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences in the Government and extinguished the inamdar's rights in such property, Section 9 provided compensation in the form of cash annuity, and Section 31 deleted exemptions granted to Devasthan lands under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960. The appellants challenged the Act primarily on the ground that it violated Article 26(c) of the Constitution, which confers on every religious denomination the fundamental right to own and acquire movable and immovable property, subject only to public order, morality and health. They argued that the Act, being for agrarian reform, did not fall within those exceptions and was therefore invalid. They further contended that Article 31A, which protects legislation from challenges under Articles 14, 19 and 31, did not exclude Article 26(c), so the Act still had to satisfy Article 26(c) in addition to Article 31(2). The respondents, the State of Gujarat, argued that rights under Article 26(c) and (d) did not derogate from the State's power of compulsory acquisition under Article 31, that Article 26(c) was not absolute and was subject to reasonable regulation, and that the Act was made in furtherance of Directive Principles of State Policy and was protected under Article 31A as agrarian reform. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, held that Article 26(c) guarantees the right to own and acquire property for managing religious affairs, but this right cannot take away the State's power to compulsorily acquire property under Article 31(2). The court observed that if acquisition of property of a religious denomination by the State could be proved to be such as to destroy or completely negative its right to own or acquire movable and immovable property for even the survival of a religious institution, the question may have to be examined differently, but no such allegation was made. The court found no conflict between Article 26 and Article 31. It also rejected the contention that Khaja Mian Wakf Estate had been overruled by the Bank Nationalisation case. The court held that the Act was passed in furtherance of agrarian reform and was fairly protected under Article 31A. The right under Article 26(c) was not absolute; no rights in an organised society can be absolute. The State has to step in to set right imbalance between competing interests, and the Directive Principles under Article 37 have a positive role. Laws that indirectly affect secular activities or religious institutions do not infringe the core of religion. The court also rejected the objection on inadequacy of compensation, holding that such objection cannot be agitated against legislation protected by Article 31A. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals and upheld the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969.
Headnote
A) Constitution of India - Fundamental Rights - Right of Religious Denominations to Own and Acquire Property - Article 26(c) - Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969, Sections 5, 8, 9 - The court examined whether compulsory acquisition of Devasthan inam lands deprived a religious denomination of its right to own and acquire property under Article 26(c). It held that Article 26(c) guarantees the right to own and acquire property for managing religious affairs but this right cannot take away the State's power to compulsorily acquire property under Article 31(2). Since the acquisition was not alleged to destroy or completely negative the denomination's right to own property for survival, it was valid and the right to the acquired property was transferred to the State; no conflict between Articles 26 and 31 was found (Paras 327-328). B) Constitution of India - Fundamental Rights - Article 31A Protection to Agrarian Reform Legislation and Directive Principles - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 31A and 37 - The court held that the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 was passed in furtherance of agrarian reform and was fairly protected under the saving provision of Article 31A. The right under Article 26(c) was not absolute; no rights in an organised society can be absolute. The State has to step in to set right imbalance between competing interests and the Directive Principles under Article 37 have a positive role. Laws that indirectly affect secular activities or religious institutions do not infringe the core of religion if they provide for social welfare; the court must strike a balance between conflicting claims of different interests (Paras 328-329). C) Constitution of India - Fundamental Rights - Adequacy of Compensation for Agrarian Reform Legislation - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 31(2) and 31A; Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969, Sections 9, 31 - The appellants objected that compensation in the form of cash annuity was grossly inadequate and Section 31 of the Act, by removing exemptions under tenancy and ceiling laws, violated Article 26(c). The court rejected this objection, holding that an objection on the score of inadequacy of compensation cannot be agitated against a legislation which relates to agrarian reform and is protected by Article 31A; likewise objections under Articles 14, 19 and 31 were not entertainable (Para 329). D) Precedent - Binding Value of Prior Decisions - Khaja Mian Wakf Estate v. State of Madras and Bank Nationalisation Case - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 31(2) - The appellants contended that the decision in Khaja Mian Wakf Estate was overruled by the Bank Nationalisation case and therefore the Act had to also satisfy Article 26(c) beyond Article 31(2). The court negatived this contention, holding that Khaja Mian Wakf Estate was not overruled and that acquisition of property under Article 31(2) was valid without separate compliance with Article 26(c) unless the right was destroyed (Para 327).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969, which abolished Devasthan inams and vested certain properties in the State, violated Article 26(c) of the Constitution; whether the Act satisfied the requirements of Article 31(2) and was protected under Article 31A; whether Section 31 of the Act violated Article 26(c) due to alleged inadequacy of compensation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals and upheld the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969. It held that the Act did not violate Article 26(c) and was protected under Article 31A as agrarian reform legislation. The court rejected the contention that inadequacy of compensation could be a ground for challenge against Article 31A-protected laws.
Law Points
- Article 26(c) right of religious denominations to own and acquire property is not absolute
- it must coexist with state's power of compulsory acquisition under Article 31(2)
- acquisition under valid law transfers ownership and does not violate Article 26(c) unless it destroys right to own property for survival
- Article 31A protects agrarian reform legislation from challenge under Articles 14
- 19
- 31
- adequacy of compensation cannot be questioned for Article 31A-protected laws
- directive principles under Article 37 guide state regulation of secular activities without infringing core of religion.
