Public Trusts in Rajasthan: Legislative Framework and Jurisprudential Trajectory

Public Trusts in Rajasthan: Legislative Framework and Jurisprudential Trajectory

Introduction

Public religious and charitable endowments occupy a distinctive position in India’s legal landscape, embodying both spiritual aspirations and socio-economic obligations. Rajasthan, a State with a rich legacy of temples, maths, dharamshalas and other religious institutions, codified a comprehensive regulatory regime through the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (“RPT Act”). More than six decades later, judicial interpretations—from the constitutional bench decision on the Nathdwara Temple to recent appellate rulings on alienation and registration—continue to sculpt the contours of trusteeship, State oversight, and devotees’ rights. This article critically analyses the statutory framework, surveys seminal case-law, and evaluates the evolving balance between autonomy of religious bodies and the public interest in accountable administration.

Historical and Legislative Context

The colonial Charitable Endowments Acts, followed by State-specific enactments such as the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, influenced Rajasthan’s post-independence legislation. The RPT Act, enforced from 1 July 1962, sought “to regulate and to make better provision for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in the State of Rajasthan.” Unlike purely declaratory statutes, it creates an institutional architecture—Assistant Commissioners, the Devasthan Commissioner, and an appellate hierarchy—empowered to investigate, register, audit, and, where necessary, assume management of errant trusts.

Core Features of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959

Registration (Ch. V: ss. 16–29)

  • Section 16: Assistant Commissioner (AC) to maintain the Register of Public Trusts.
  • Section 17: Working trustee must apply within three months; AC may extend up to two years.[1]
  • Section 29: Bar against suits by unregistered trusts—no court shall hear or decide a claim on their behalf.[2]

Management & Alienation (ss. 30–40)

  • Section 31: Prior sanction of AC mandatory for sale, mortgage or gift of trust property.
  • Sections 38–39: Any person interested may seek directions; District Judge may frame schemes.

State Supervision & Take-over (Ch. X: ss. 52–56)

  • Section 52: Government may apply Chapter X to specified trusts by notification.
  • Section 53: Power to appoint a committee of management where mismanagement is found.

Jurisprudential Evolution

Public v. Private Character: Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj (1963)

The Supreme Court’s pronouncement that the Nathdwara Temple is a public institution, with the Tilkayat merely a custodian, constitutes the foundational precedent for Rajasthan.[3] The Court upheld the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959, emphasising that vesting property in the deity coupled with statutory management does not infringe Articles 25 and 26 so long as core religious practices remain untouched. This reasoning invariably informs later determinations under the RPT Act concerning the public character of Hindu institutions.

Registration and Statutory Compliance

In Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (2014), the Supreme Court underscored that Sections 16–29 provide an exhaustive mechanism for registration, correction of entries, and inquiry; litigants must ordinarily exhaust these remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.[4] The Court approved State intervention after long-standing disputes over Galta Peeth, vindicating the legislature’s intent to prevent dissipation of religious properties through delay or factional control.

More recently, Bagadiya Charitable Trust v. Janki Devi Bagadiya (2024) clarified that non-registration within the prescribed period, if attributable to administrative inaction rather than trustee default, cannot defeat substantive rights; yet Section 29’s bar operates once the fact of non-registration is established.[5]

Challenge to Register Entries & “Person Interested”

The High Court in Gheesu Dass v. Narsingh Kansara (1999) held that a person asserting adverse title cannot invoke Section 22 for cancellation of entries; the inquiry is limited to objections from those who accept the existence of the trust.[6] This aligns with the Supreme Court’s construction of analogous provisions in the Madhya Pradesh statute (Abdul Karim Khan, 1965). The decision maintains the summary nature of registration inquiries and steers title disputes to ordinary civil suits.

State Oversight and Take-over Powers

In Deewan Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Ardevi (2007) the Supreme Court acknowledged that post-notification under Section 52, management vests in the Devasthan Department; judicial review focuses on procedural fairness rather than the wisdom of takeover.[7] Similarly, the Galta Peeth litigations (2014) illustrate that where mismanagement or rival claims jeopardise public interest, the State’s duty to ensure proper administration justifies temporary supersession of hereditary mahants.

Alienation of Trust Property

The Rajasthan High Court in Shyam Kanwar v. Laccha Ram (2019) voided a sale-deed executed without Section 31(1) sanction, reiterating that trustees hold property as fiduciaries and cannot convey title unilaterally.[8] Complementing this, Jayanti Lal v. Commissioner, Devasthan (2006) interprets Sections 38–39 to allow community bodies (here, Digambar Jain Panch) to seek judicial directions where intra-trust disputes risk undermining heritage monuments.

Interface with Tax Exemptions

Tax jurisprudence increasingly conditions fiscal benefits on compliance with local trust laws. In CIT (Exemptions) v. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee (2017), the High Court examined Section 65 of the RPT Rules while determining application of income.[9] Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in New Noble Educational Society (2022), applicants for registration under Sections 12AA or 80G of the Income-tax Act must furnish proof of registration under the relevant State enactment; the ITAT decision in Uttrakhand Samaj, Jaipur (2024) reflects this convergence.[10]

Critical Appraisal

The RPT Act has largely succeeded in instituting transparency—mandatory audits, public inspection of balance-sheets, and reporting obligations curb mal-administration. Nevertheless, challenges persist:

  • Multiplicity of Forums: Trustees oscillate between the Devasthan hierarchy, civil courts, and writ benches, generating procedural complexity.
  • Delayed Notifications: Section 52 take-overs often occur decades after mismanagement surfaces, by which time assets may be dissipated.
  • Digital Transparency: The statutory register remains predominantly paper-based; an online portal with GIS mapping of trust properties could deter encroachments.
  • Harmonisation with Income Tax Law: Recent fiscal jurisprudence suggests automatic data-sharing between Devasthan and tax authorities to streamline compliance.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 embodies a carefully calibrated model—respecting religious autonomy while insisting on fiduciary accountability. Judicial decisions—from the seminal Nathdwara ruling to contemporary alienation disputes—affirm that public trusts are not private estates; they exist for the benefit of an indeterminate body of devotees and the broader public. Vigilant enforcement, technological modernisation, and doctrinal clarity on “persons interested” will ensure that Rajasthan’s sacred and charitable institutions continue to flourish in accordance with their founders’ benevolent intent and constitutional values.

Footnotes

  1. Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 SCC 5 530 (SC) (quoting Section 17 text).
  2. Bagadiya Charitable Trust v. Janki Devi Bagadiya, 2024 (also citing Nand Lal SC precedent on the scope of Section 29).
  3. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638.
  4. Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan, supra note 1.
  5. Bagadiya Charitable Trust, supra note 2.
  6. Gheesu Dass v. Narsingh Kansara, 1999 SCC OnLine Raj 55.
  7. Deewan Singh v. Rajendra Pd. Ardevi, (2007) SC (extracting Section 52 notifications).
  8. Shyam Kanwar v. Laccha Ram, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 1124.
  9. CIT (Exemptions) v. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee, 2017 Raj HC.
  10. Uttrakhand Samaj, Jaipur v. CIT (Exemption), ITAT Jaipur, 2024.