RATILAL PANACHAND GANDHI versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 1055 · Decided: 18-03-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

•• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1055 
institutions are properly administered and their income 
is duly appropriated for purposes for which they were 
founded or exist. 
As there is no question of favouring 
any 
particular 
religion 
or 
religious 
denomination, 
article 27 could not possibly apply. 
The result is that, in our opinion, the 
on! y sections 
of the Act, which are invalid, are sections 38, 39 and 
the proviso 
to section 46. 
The 
application 
under 
article 32 is, therefore, allowed to this extent 
that a 
writ in the nature 
of mandamus would issue restrain-
ing the 
Commissioner 
and 
the 
State 
Government 
enforcing against the petitioners the prov!Slons of the 
sections mentioned above. 
The other 
prayers 
of the 
petlt10ners 
are 
disallowed. 
No 
separate 
order is 
necessary in Case No. 1 of 
1950, 
which 
will 
stand 
dismissed. 
We make no order as to costs either in the 
petition or in the appeal. 
RATILAL PANACHAND GANDHI 
tJ. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS. 
(and connected appeal) 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, 
S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Constitution of India, arts. 25 and 26-Bombay Public Trust Act, 
1950 (Act XX!X of 1950), ss. 44, 47(3) (4) (5) (6), 55(c) and 56(1) 
-Whether ultra vires the Constitution-Section 58 of the 
Act-
Whether ultra vires the State Legislature. 
Held, that the provision of s. 
44 of the 
Bombay 
Public 
Trust Act, 1950, relating to the 
appointment of the 
Charity 
Commissioner 
as a trustee of 
any public trust 
by the 
court 
without any reservation 
in regard to religious institutions 
Iike 
ten1ples and Maths is unconstitutional and must be held to be void. 
The provisions of cl. (3) to (6) of s. 47 of the Act to the extent 
that they relate to the appointment of the Charity Commissioner 
as a trustee of a religious trust like temple 
and Math are uncon-
stitutional and must be held to be void. 
A religious sect or 
denomination has 
the 
undoubted right 
guaranteed by the 
Cofistitution to tnanage its own affairs in matters 
of religion and this includes the right to spend the trust property 
or its income for religion and for 
religious 
purposes 
and objects 
indicated 
by the founder of the trust or established 
by 
usage 
1954 
Mahant Sri 
Jagannath 
Ramanuj Das 
and Another 
v • 
The State of 
Orissa and 
Anot,,,,.. 
Mukherjea J. 
1954 
March 18. 
1954 
Ratilal 
Panachand 
Gandhi 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay and 
Others. 
1056 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
obtaining' in a particular institution. 
To divert the trust property 
or funds for purposes which the Charity Commissioner or the court 
considers expedient or proper, although the original objects 
of the 
founder can still be carried out, is an unwarrantable encroachment 
on the freedom of religious institutions 
in regard to the manage-
ment of their religious affairs. 
Therefore cl. (3) of s. 55., 
which 
contains the 
offending 
provision and the corresponding provision relating 
to 
the 
po,vers 
of the court occurring in the latter part of s. 56(1), must be held 
to be void. 
Section 58 of the Act is not ultra vires of the State Legislature 
because the contribution imposed under the section is not a tax but 
a fee which comes within the 
purview of entry 47 of List III in 
Schedule VII of the Constitution. 
Commissioner, Hindu Religious 
Endowments, Madras v. Sri 
Lakshmindra 
Thirtha 
Swamiar, ([1954] 
S.C.R. 1005) 
Davis 
v. Beason (133 U.S. 333), Adelaide Company v. The Commonwealth 
(67 C.L.R. 116, 124), and famshed Ji v. Soonabai [1919] 
(I.LR. 
33 Born. 112) referred to. 
· 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 1 of 1954, and Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1954. 
Appeals under article 132(1) of the Constitution of 
India from the 
Judgment and 
Order dated the 12th 
September, 1952, of the High Court of 
Judicature 
at 
Bombay in Civil Application No. 880 of 
1952 
and 
Miscellaneous 
Application 
No. 212 of 1952 
respec-
tively . 
. N. C. Chatterjee and, U. M. 
and I. N. Shroff, with them) 
Appeal No. 1 of 1954. 
Trivedi 
for the 
(H. H. Dalal 
appellants 
in 
Rajinder Narain for the appellants in Civil Appeal 
No. 7 of 1954. 
M. C. Setalvad and C. K. Daphtary (G. N. Joshi and 
Porus A. Mehta, with them) for the respondents in 
both the appeals. 
1954. March 18. The Judgment 
of the Court was 
delivered by 
MuKHERJEA J.-These two 
connected appeals 
are 
directed against a common 
judgment 
of a 
Division 
Bench of the Bombay High Court, dated th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.