1956 (1) TMI 27 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of certain provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, as amended by Orissa Act XVIII of 1954.
2. Validity of sections 42 and 79-A of the present Act.
3. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the present Act on the rights of the Mahants.
4. Legislative competence of the Orissa Legislature in reviving schemes declared invalid by the Supreme Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Constitutionality of Certain Provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, as Amended by Orissa Act XVIII of 1954:
The petitions challenge the constitutionality of various sections of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, as amended by Orissa Act XVIII of 1954. The main attack is on sections 42 and 79-A of the present Act. The challenge is based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahant Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. The State of Orissa ([1954] S.C.R. 1046). The Supreme Court previously declared sections 38 and 39 of the Orissa Act IV of 1939, as amended in 1953, unconstitutional because they allowed the framing of schemes by an executive officer without judicial intervention, amounting to an unreasonable restriction on the rights of the Mahants.

Validity of Sections 42 and 79-A of the Present Act:
Sections 42 and 79-A of the present Act are scrutinized for their validity. Section 42 deals with the framing of schemes for religious institutions, including Maths. The Commissioner, who must be a member of the Judicial Service not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge, conducts the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 79-A revives schemes framed under the invalidated 1939 Act, deeming them to have been settled under the present Act and providing a right of appeal to the High Court within sixty days.

Reasonableness of Restrictions Imposed by the Present Act on the Rights of the Mahants:
The Supreme Court examines whether the provisions of the present Act impose unreasonable restrictions on the rights of the Mahants. The Court notes that the present Act provides for a judicial enquiry by a Commissioner and a right of appeal to the High Court. This differs from the previous Act, where the enquiry was more executive in nature. The Court concludes that the present provisions do not constitute unreasonable restrictions, as the affected Mahants have a reasonable chance to present their case and appeal to the High Court.

Legislative Competence of the Orissa Legislature in Reviving Schemes Declared Invalid by the Supreme Court:
Section 79-A of the present Act, which revives schemes declared invalid by the Supreme Court, is examined for legislative competence. The Supreme Court clarifies that the legislature does not purport to declare the previously invalid schemes as valid under the old law but rather deems them settled under the present Act, subject to appeal. The Court finds this provision within the competence of the legislature as it avoids the inconvenience of re-doing previously settled schemes.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upholds the validity of sections 42(1)(b), 42(7), and 44(2) as well as section 79-A of the present Act. The Court finds that these provisions do not impose unreasonable restrictions on the rights of the Mahants and are within the legislative competence of the Orissa Legislature. Consequently, all five petitions are dismissed with costs.