MAHANT MOTI DAS versus S. P. SAHI, THE SPECIAL OFFICER IN CHARGE OF HINDU RELIGIOUS TRUSTS & OTHERS

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 15-04-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
563 
MAHANT MOTI DAS 
v. 
S. P. SAHI, THE SPECIAL OFFICER IN CHARGE 
OF HINDU H,ELIGIOUS TRUSTS & OTHEH,S 
(and connected appeals) 
(S. R. DAS, c. J., s. K. DAS, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Hindu Religious Trusts-Constitutional validity of Bihar 
Hindu Religious Trusts Act-Difference between Hindus, Jain and 
Sikh religious trusts-Legislative classification-Restrictions imposed 
on trustees-Validity-Whether Act interferes with practice of reli-
gion-Levy of a fe§ for the expenses of administration of Act-
Legality-Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, r950 (Bihar I of 
r95r), ss. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 28, 29, 32, 55(2), 60, 70-Constitution of 
India, Arts. r4, r9(r)(j), r9(5), 25, 26, 27. 
The appellants as the Mahants of the respective maths or 
asthals were served with notices under s. 59 of the Bihar Hindu 
Religious Trusts Act, 1950, by the President, Bihar State Board 
of Religious Trusts, asking them to furnish statements and 
accounts of the properties in their possession. They challenged 
the constitutional validity of the Act by proceedings taken in 
the High Court on the grounds (r) that ss. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 
the Act infringe Art. 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as there 
was ine:!qu:;Llity of treatment as between Hindu religious trusts 
on one hand and Sikh religious trusts on the other, the latter 
having been excluded from the purview of the Act, and that 
there was inequality of treatment even as between Hindu 
religious trusts and Jain religious trusts, though both came 
under the Act; (2) that the provisions of ch. V of the Act and 
in particular ss. 28 and 32 violate Art. i9(r)(f) of the Constitu-
tion, as under those provisions the mahant or Shebait practically 
loses his right of management and is reduced to the position of 
a mere servant of the Board; (3) that the provisions of the Act 
contravene Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution, as the power to 
alter or modify the budget relating to a religious trust or the 
power to give directions to a trustee may be exercised by the 
Board in such a way as to affect the clue observance of religious 
practices in the math or temple ; (4) that s. 70 imposes an un-
authorised tax, and (5) that s. 55(2) contravenes Art. 133 of the 
Constitution. 
Held, (r) that in view of the fact that in the matter of 
religious trusts in the State of Bihar, there are differences be-
tween Sikhs, Hindus and Jains and that the needs of Jains and 
Hindus are not the same in the matter of the administration of 
I959 
April Ij. 
• I959 
Mah ant i'v! ofi 
v. 
S. P. S11hi 
• 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
their respective religious trusts, it is open to the Bihar Legis-
lature to exclude Sikhs who might have been in no need of pro-
Das tection and to distinguish between Hindus and Jains. 
Accord-
ingly, ss. 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Act do not infringe Art. r4 of 
the Constitution. 
It is well settled that while Art. r4 forbids class legislation, 
it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of 
legislation, and in order to pass the test of permissible classifica-
tion, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classifi-
cation must be founded on an intelligible differentia which dis-
tingvished persons or things that are grouped together from 
others left out of the group and (2) that that differentia must 
have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved 
by the statute in question. 
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, 
(1959] S.C.R. 279, relied on. 
(2) that having regard to the position of a trustee in respect 
of the trust property which he holds and the object or purpose 
of the Act, the restrictions imposed in Ch. V of the Act are 
really for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the trust 
and for the better administration, protection and preservation 
of the trust properties, and are reasonable restrictions in the 
interests of the general public within the meaning of cl. (5) of 
Art. 19 of the Constitution. 
(3) that the Act does not contravene Arts. 25 and 26 of the 
Constitution, as the provisions of the Act relating to the power 
of the Board to alter the budget and to give directions to the 
trustee are subject to restrictions, namely, that they must be for 
the proper administration of the religious trust; and, further, 
none of the provisions interfere with "matters of religion" 
including practices ·which a religious denomi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.