1954 (3) TMI 71 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
2. Alleged conflict with fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
3. Legality of the contribution levied under Section 58 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950:
The appellants challenged the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, arguing that several provisions conflicted with their fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Act was intended to regulate and improve the administration of public and religious trusts in Bombay. The High Court dismissed the petitions, leading the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. Alleged Conflict with Fundamental Rights under Articles 25 and 26:
Scope of Articles 25 and 26:
Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, health, and morality. Article 26 grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion and administer property in accordance with the law.

Analysis of Specific Sections:
- Sections 18, 31-37, 44, 47, 48, 50(e), 50(g), 55, 58, and 66:
- Sections 18 and 31-37: These sections pertain to the registration, maintenance of accounts, and auditing of public trusts. The Court held that these are administrative matters and do not interfere with religious affairs. The requirements for registration and maintenance of accounts are necessary for proper supervision and control of trust properties.
- Section 44: The provision allowing the appointment of the Charity Commissioner as a trustee by the court was deemed unconstitutional for religious institutions like temples and Maths. This would violate the right to manage religious affairs.
- Section 47: Similar objections were raised against the appointment of the Charity Commissioner as a trustee under clauses (3) to (6). The Court held these provisions invalid for religious trusts.
- Sections 50(e) and 50(g): These sections were found to be valid as they are similar to provisions in the Civil Procedure Code and do not infringe on fundamental rights.
- Sections 55 and 56: These sections extend the doctrine of cy pres beyond its recognized limits, allowing diversion of trust property for purposes other than those intended by the donor. The Court held this to be an unconstitutional encroachment on the freedom of religious institutions.
- Section 58: The levy of contributions for the Public Trusts Administration Fund was challenged as a tax beyond the State Legislature's competence. The Court held that these contributions are fees, not taxes, as they are earmarked for specific services related to trust administration.

3. Legality of the Contribution Levied under Section 58:
The Court distinguished between taxes and fees. Taxes are compulsory exactions for public purposes, while fees are payments for specific services rendered. The contributions under Section 58 are fees because they are used exclusively for the administration of public trusts and are not merged with the general revenue. Therefore, Section 58 is within the legislative competence of the State.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, issuing a mandamus restraining the enforcement of specific provisions:
1. Section 44 to the extent it allows the appointment of the Charity Commissioner as a trustee by the court.
2. Clauses (3) to (6) of Section 47.
3. Clause (c) of Section 55 and the corresponding part of Section 56(1).

The other contentions of the appellants were dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.