Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. Learned Advocate General referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in SOUTH INDIAN FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MADRAS Vs. ENTERTAINING ENTERPRISES ((1995) 2 SCC 462). It is true that the rule of pith and substance has been applied in the said judgment. In the context and content of the legislation which arose for consideration in that case, it was held that Section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu (Exhibition of Films on Television Screen) Regulation Act, 1984, cannot be regarded as a legislation on copyright itself, falling under List-I. The Tamil Nadu Act was held to be only a regulatory provision and not repugnant to the provisions under the Copyrights Act, 1957. In contrast, in the case on hand before us, while the Central Act does not contemplate any disqualification for a foreigner to be a trustee of a temple, the Tamil Nadu Act had proposed to clamp down a disqualification and consequently impinging upon the rights of a foreigner to be a Trustee, which bar is not contemplated under the Central Act. There can also be no dispute over the fact that a foreigner not being a citizen, was not entitled to any fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution other than Articles 14 and 21, vide the following judgments relied on by the learned Advocate General:

24. The above judgment strengthens the position that merely because the issue pertains to the administration of the religious endowments which fall under the Concurrent List, it does not follow that every issue relating to such administration would fall under Entry 28 of List III only and with the assent of the President, the repugnancy, if any, would be cured.

25. I had also pointed out earlier that the impugned amendment has the result of discrimination between foreigners, namely, a foreigner in Tamil Nadu alone cannot become a trustee of a religious institution, whereas, a foreigner in other states can be a trustee. In STATE OF A.P. Vs. McDOWELL AND CO. (AIR 1996 SC 1627), the Supreme Court had held that a foreigner is certainly entitled to equality before law.

28. Reliance placed on the judgment in SAHRUPA NACHIAR Vs. V.S. MOHAMED HASIA MARAIKAYAR (2001 (1) MLJ 188) supra, is also of no help to the respondents. On the facts of that case, it was found that the foreigner did not obtain permission from Reserve Bank of India to hold immovable property in India. Therefore, it is open to a non-citizen to be a Trustee and to hold immovable property after obtaining permission from the Reserve Bank. There is no question of any absolute bar on the foreigner to be a Trustee and to hold immovable property as attempted to be spelt out from the above judgment.

31. In the affidavit, the petitioner has also referred to certain commissions and omissions on the part of the seventh respondent and that the seventh respondent has managed to continue to remain at India without any justification only on the strength of series of orders obtained from this Court on writ petitions filed by the petitioner. Though there was an order of stay in some of the writ petitions for a short period, as on date, there was no impediment for the authorities to detain and deport the seventh respondent. It is further stated that after the amendment of the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act disabling foreigners to be trustees, the stay of the petitioner now has absolutely no justification on any account.