Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) AIR 2005 SC 2920 (Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India)
(ii) AIR 1994 SC 1461(State of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Khudiram Chakma)

7. We will deal with each of the objections one by one.

I. Is Article 14 of the Constitution violated since such a condition is not found in any other State?

The chronological narration of events show that the respondent's claim to be a hereditary trustee was rejected and it has become final. His appointment as a fit person was set aside. He was sent to Civil Court. There he obtained a decree by consent from his rival. His claim to be appointed as Managing Trustee was rejected. At this stage, the amendment came. So he was not holding any post when amendment was introduced. The objection is that when a foreigner can be a trustee in a Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions in a State other than the State of Tamil Nadu, he is denied that right only in the State of Tamil Nadu. But the learned Additional Advocate General produced a copy of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, where an identical provision is found. Section 21 of the Act which deals with disqualification of Members reads as follows:

Therefore, this ground is rejected.

II. The next ground that was raised was that the legislation has been enacted to single out the respondent, who alone is a foreigner holding the position of trustee in the state of Tamil Nadu.

The State is empowered to enact legislations for 'administration of religious institutions" as per Entry 28 List III. It is thus that the H.R. & C.E. Act was enacted. Section 26 provides for qualification of a trustee. Several conditions have been prescribed. By the impugned amendment, citizenship has been prescribed as a qualification. The Statement of Objects and Reasons indicate the State's decision to disqualify foreign nationals from holding the posts of trustees. In the counter it is stated that it is for the better administration.

So the question whether the President applied his mind before giving his assent need not delay us since in this case, Article 254(2) has no role to play.

IV. Distinction between Hindu alien and aliens professing other religion:

The learned Single Judge has also said that if by the amendment, a discrimination is made between a foreigner, who wants to be a trustee in a Hindu Trust and a foreigner, who wants to be in a Christian Trust or a Muslim Trust, we are afraid that this will not really be a question that falls within Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the State wants to make a special provision with regard to Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions without making a similar provision for other Religious Minority Institution, on that ground, no foreigner can complain. The rights of a foreigner under our Constitution are dealt with in the following cases:
(b) Section 3(2)(e)(vii) and (ix) were specifically stressed to show that this would indicate that the amendment fail squarely within the legislative competency of the Parliament under Entry 17 of the Union List. Section 3(2)(e)(vii) and (ix) read as follows:
3. Power to make orders.--

(2)..

(e)..

(vii) prohibiting him from engaging in activities of a prescribed or specified description;...

(ix) otherwise regulating his conduct in any such particular as may be prescribed or specified;

These Sections were repeated by the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent that the power to prohibit a foreigner from becoming a trustee is only with the Union and the State Government cannot legislate it. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is a State Act which is covered by Entry 28 of List III. Section 26(1) deals with dis-qualifications of trustees. The dis-qualifications are as follows: