1964 (5) TMI 47 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the scheme framed under the Madras Act 11 of 1927.
2. Consistency of the scheme with the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951.
3. Impact of the Constitution on the scheme's validity post-1950.
4. Right to challenge the scheme under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Scheme Framed Under the Madras Act 11 of 1927:
The scheme for the administration of the Mutt and its endowments was framed on September 6, 1939, under Section 63 of the Madras Act 11 of 1927. The predecessor of the appellant challenged the scheme but only achieved minor modifications. The High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal after it was withdrawn. Although the scheme was formulated, no effective steps were taken to implement it until 1952. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the scheme was valid when framed under the earlier Act.

2. Consistency of the Scheme with the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951:
The earlier Act was repealed and replaced by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951. Section 103(d) of the latter Act states that schemes settled under the earlier Act are deemed to have been settled under the latter Act. The appellant argued that the scheme must be consistent with the latter Act's provisions. However, the Court held that Section 103(d) does not necessitate re-examining the schemes for consistency. Instead, any required modifications should be made under Section 62(3) of the latter Act, which allows for modifications or cancellations by the Court upon application.

3. Impact of the Constitution on the Scheme's Validity Post-1950:
The appellant contended that the scheme, though valid when framed, could be challenged under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution since it was not enforced before January 26, 1950. The Court rejected this argument, stating that fundamental rights are not retrospective. The scheme's validity, established in 1939, could not be challenged based on constitutional provisions that came into effect later. The Court emphasized that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution do not apply retroactively to actions or schemes validly framed before its enactment.

4. Right to Challenge the Scheme Under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that the scheme deprived him of his property rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Court referred to the case of R.S. Seth Shanti Sarup v. Union of India, where it was held that orders continuing to affect property rights post-1950 could be challenged under Article 19. However, the Court clarified that this principle applies to invalid orders, not to schemes validly framed before the Constitution's enactment. The Court concluded that the appellant's property rights were effectively taken away when the scheme was framed and upheld by courts prior to 1950, making the constitutional challenge inapplicable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the scheme's validity as framed under the earlier Act and rejecting the appellant's constitutional challenge based on Article 19(1)(f). The Court emphasized that fundamental rights are not retrospective and that any modifications to the scheme should be pursued under the provisions of the latter Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.