Deeds & Contracts, Supreme Court’s Latest Guidelines

The legal landscape surrounding the administration of Hindu religious institutions has witnessed a significant development. Petitions challenging the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (which also forms the basis of the law in Telangana post-state bifurcation), were recently addressed by a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on April 1st. The court, instead of ruling on the merits of the challenges, directed the petitioners to approach the respective High Courts.

Understanding the Legislative Framework: State Governance of Religious Endowments

The aforementioned state Acts provide a framework for the governance and administration of Hindu public religious institutions, charitable endowments, and trusts within their respective jurisdictions. Key aspects of these laws generally include:

• Appointment of Administrators: Empowering state governments to appoint executive officers, trustees, and committees to manage these institutions.

• Financial Oversight: Granting the state authority to oversee the financial affairs of temples and endowments, including budgeting, auditing, and utilization of funds.

• Property Management: Providing mechanisms for the protection and management of the properties and assets belonging to these religious entities.

• Supervisory Powers: Vesting in the state government a degree of supervisory control to ensure the proper functioning and prevent mismanagement of religious institutions.

The Petitioners' Challenge: Alleged Infringement of Religious Freedom

The petitions filed before the Supreme Court challenged the constitutional validity of these state Acts. The core contention of the petitioners is that these laws infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. These articles protect the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion (Article 25), and grant religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion (Article 26). Petitioners argue that the extensive control granted to state governments under these Acts unduly interferes with the autonomy of religious institutions in managing their religious affairs.

Supreme Court's Directive: Referral to Respective High Courts

The court reasoned that the High Courts would be better positioned to appreciate the specific dimensions and historical context of the challenges to the provisions of their respective state Acts.

The Supreme Court's order explicitly stated:

"Having regard to the challenge made to various provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of the respective states, we find that the Petitioners could be permitted to approach the respective High Courts to assail the said provisions. It is noted that in these petitions, the provisions under challenge are not only pertaining to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, but also the Pudechery Act of 1932, as well as the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1987. We find that the better way of ventilating the grievances of the Petitioners herein is to assail the provisions of the respective Acts before the respective jurisdiction High Courts, so as to enable the High Courts to better appreciate the dimensions of challenge of the provisions of the respective Acts. In the circumstances, we dispose of these petitions by reserving liberty to the Petitioners herein to file their Writ Petitions before the respective High Courts. Needless to observe that if such Writ Petitions are filed by the Petitioners herein before the respective High Courts, they should be considered having regard to the various dimensions of the provisions in light of the socio-economic and cultural and religious aspects of the matter, which are all historical aspects of the matter. The High Court is also at liberty to constitute an expert committee to have the assistance of the said committed for the purpose of deciding the cases if it so thinks fit. Consequently, these Writ Petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms."

Post-Supreme Court Order: The Path Forward in High Courts

Implications of the Supreme Court's Direction

Following the Supreme Court's directive, the legal proceedings will now unfold in the respective High Courts. This shift entails several potential changes:

• Filing/Transfer of Petitions: Petitioners will need to initiate fresh writ petitions or seek the transfer of their existing Supreme Court petitions to the High Courts of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana, based on the specific Act being challenged in each case.

• Reframing Arguments: While the fundamental challenge concerning state control and the violation of Articles 25 and 26 may persist, petitioners will likely need to tailor their arguments to address the specific provisions and nuances of each state's individual legislation.

• Establishing Jurisdictional Basis: The petitions filed in the High Courts will need to clearly establish the territorial jurisdiction of the respective High Court over the challenged state Act.

• Engagement with State Authorities: The state governments of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana will become the primary respondents in these High Court proceedings, requiring petitioners to serve notices and present their case directly to these state judicial bodies.

• Potential for Varied Outcomes: It is conceivable that the High Courts in the three states might arrive at different conclusions based on the specific legal arguments presented, the historical context of each state's legislation, and their interpretation of the constitutional provisions.

• Expert Committees: The Supreme Court has explicitly granted the High Courts the liberty to constitute expert committees to assist in understanding the socio-economic, cultural, and religious aspects relevant to the matter. This suggests that the High Courts may delve into the historical and societal context surrounding these Acts.

• Future Appeals to the Supreme Court: Depending on the verdicts delivered by the respective High Courts, there remains the possibility of further appeals being filed before the Supreme Court at a later stage.

Conclusion:

By directing the petitioners to the High Courts, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of allowing these regional judicial bodies to first examine the intricacies of their respective state laws and their historical context. The final resolution of the constitutional challenges to these Hindu Religious Endowments Acts will now be a process that unfolds in the High Courts, with the potential for further scrutiny by the Supreme Court in the future.

About the Author- Sneha Chavan is a Short-Form Copywriter.