State Regulation and Autonomy under the Religious Endowments Act: A Constitutional and Jurisprudential Analysis

State Regulation and Autonomy under the Religious Endowments Act: A Constitutional and Jurisprudential Analysis

Introduction

The governance of religious endowments in India has long stood at the confluence of two competing imperatives: the preservation of religious autonomy and the necessity of public accountability. The Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (“1863 Act”) was the first pan-Indian statute that sought to reconcile these imperatives by divesting the colonial executive of direct managerial responsibilities while creating community-controlled mechanisms for oversight. Post-Independence constitutional guarantees under Articles 25 and 26, coupled with an evolving corpus of judicial precedent, have since re-configured the operational space of the 1863 Act and its progeny. This article critically analyses the legislative design, historical evolution and constitutional validity of the 1863 Act, while situating it within the broader jurisprudence on state intervention in religious endowments.

Historical Context and Emergence of the 1863 Act

Regulation XIX of 1810 (Bengal) and Regulation VII of 1817 (Madras) had originally vested the Board of Revenue with supervision over religious charities.[1] By the mid-nineteenth century, the East India Company articulated a policy of withdrawing from direct religious administration, culminating in the 1863 Act. Parliamentary debates and the Act’s preamble underscore two objectives: (i) “relieving” state revenue officers from ecclesiastical duties, and (ii) ensuring “proper management” through locally appointed trustees and committees.[2]

Statutory Architecture of the 1863 Act

The Act applies to “any mosque, temple or other religious establishment” previously under governmental nomination or confirmation powers (s. 3). Key features include:

  • Community Committees – Section 7 authorises the Local Government to constitute district-level committees comprising not fewer than three nor more than five persons “of good repute” for the superintendence of endowments.
  • Transfer of Property – Upon a committee’s constitution, the Board of Revenue must transfer “all landed or other property” of the endowment to the committee (s. 12).
  • Judicial Oversight – Sections 10 and 14 permit suits by “persons interested” for removal of trustees or settlement of schemes, a phrase liberally construed to include any devotee or worshipper.[3]
  • No Executive Review – The Act conspicuously omits executive revisional powers, reflecting its intent to devolve control to civil courts and the religious community.

Interaction with Subsequent Legislation

Inadequacies of the 1863 Act—including its limited territorial application and absence of supervisory audits—precipitated the Charitable Endowments Act 1890 and the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act 1920.[4] Post-Independence, several States enacted comprehensive Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (“HR&CE”) statutes, largely supplanting the 1863 regime within their jurisdictions (e.g., Madras Act 1951, Orissa Act 1951, Rajasthan Public Trusts Act 1959). Nonetheless, the 1863 Act continues to operate in territories or communities where no later statute has overriding effect, and its jurisprudence informs interpretation of newer enactments.

Constitutional Parameters: Articles 25 and 26

Articles 25 and 26 confer, respectively, (i) freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, and (ii) the collective right of “religious denominations” to manage their own affairs in matters of religion and to administer property in accordance with law. The Supreme Court has consistently distinguished religious matters (immune from state control save for public order, health and morality) from secular administration of endowments, which the legislature may validly regulate.[5]

Judicial Construction of State Intervention

Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (“Shirur Mutt”, 1954)

Striking down several intrusive provisions of the Madras HR&CE Act 1951, the Court held that while a denomination’s right to manage property can be subjected to regulation, complete divestiture in favour of a secular authority violates Article 26(d).[6] The judgment also invalidated a levy characterised as a tax rather than a regulatory fee, foreshadowing later exactions jurisprudence.

Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954)

The Court invalidated trustee-substitution clauses that empowered the Charity Commissioner to act as ex officio trustee of Jain and Parsi institutions, reaffirming that legislation cannot override a denomination’s inherent right to manage internal affairs.[7] However, contribution under s. 58 of the Bombay Act was upheld as a fee correlated to supervisory services.

Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961)

Departing from the earlier pro-autonomy trend, the Court upheld the Durgah Khwaja Saheb Act 1955, emphasising historical evidence that the Ajmer shrine had always been under state-appointed mutawallis.[8] By treating the management function as historically secular, the Court reconciled state control with Articles 19 and 26.

Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972)

Upholding abolition of hereditary archakas under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Amendment Act 1970, the Court reaffirmed that the appointment of priests is a secular activity, distinct from performance of rituals which remains protected.[9]

State of Rajasthan v. Sajjanlal Panjawat (1974)

The Court sustained Sections 17(3) and 52 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, distinguishing pre-Constitution vesting of management in the State from post-Constitutional claims under Article 26.[10]

Doctrinal Themes Emerging from the Case-Law

  • Essential Practice Test – State regulation is permissible unless it affects an essential and integral part of religion (Shirur Mutt; Venkataramana Devaru). The 1863 Act, focused on secular administration, generally survives this scrutiny.
  • Historic versus Prescriptive Control – Where historical evidence shows longstanding governmental control (e.g., Ajmer Durgah), courts are more inclined to legitimise statutory intervention.
  • Tax–Fee Dichotomy – Contributions must be proportionate to regulatory services; otherwise they are unconstitutional taxes (Shirur Mutt; Ratilal; Sajjanlal).
  • Community Participation – The 1863 Act’s committee model exemplifies participatory management, later echoed in provisions mandating inclusion of hereditary trustees or denomination nominees (Kakinanda Annadana Samajam).

Contemporary Relevance and Challenges

Despite the proliferation of State-specific HR&CE statutes, litigation under the 1863 Act persists, especially in North-Indian temples and Wakfs not covered by subsequent Acts (e.g., Sukh Ram Singh v. Baij Nath Singh). Three contemporary issues merit attention:

  1. Alienation of Endowment Property – Recent High Court rulings emphasise mandatory sanction requirements (e.g., Orissa HRE Act 1951, s. 19).[11]
  2. Transparency Registers – The Madras High Court has highlighted the importance of digital registers under s. 29 of the Tamil Nadu Act to curb misappropriation.[12]
  3. Judicial Review versus Statutory Bars – Many State Acts, unlike the 1863 Act, contain ouster clauses (e.g., Orissa Act 1951, s. 73). Courts nevertheless preserve writ jurisdiction where fundamental rights are implicated (Baradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit).

Assessment of the 1863 Act in the Modern Constitutional Milieu

The Act’s endurance is attributable to its minimalist design: it regulates only the secular dimension and vests control in locally nominated committees subject to civil-court supervision. Unlike later statutes that occasioned constitutional invalidation for over-breadth, the 1863 Act has rarely been struck down. Nonetheless, its silence on financial audits, conflict-of-interest norms and gender representation renders it less effective in meeting twenty-first century governance standards. Legislative reform might therefore consider: (i) grafting modern accountability devices (mandatory audits, RTI compliance), (ii) harmonising terminology with contemporary HR&CE statutes to avoid forum shopping, and (iii) ensuring congruence with Article 15 obligations of non-discrimination.

Conclusion

The Religious Endowments Act, 1863 inaugurated a paradigm of community-centred yet state-legislated oversight that continues to inform India’s constitutional discourse on religious freedom. Judicial interpretation since Shirur Mutt has drawn a careful line between permissible regulation of secular administration and impermissible intrusion into essential religious practices, a line the 1863 Act generally respects. However, subsequent jurisprudence—especially Durgah Committee and Seshammal—shows that historical practice and social-reform objectives can legitimate deeper state involvement. A principled balance therefore demands that future reforms of the 1863 framework enhance transparency and efficiency without diluting the constitutional promise of religious autonomy.

Footnotes

  1. Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi (1959 AIR SC 942) tracing Regulations XIX of 1810 and VII of 1817.
  2. State of Punjab v. Mahant Jatinder Dass (2015 P&H HC) discussing policy objectives behind the 1863 Act.
  3. T.R. Ramachandra Aiyar v. Parameswaran Unni (1918 Mad HC) interpreting “persons interested” under s. 14; see also s. 15 of the 1863 Act.
  4. Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi, supra; Amar Ahmed v. Durgah Committee (PC 1946).
  5. Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of A.P. (1996 SC); Shirur Mutt (1954 SC).
  6. Commissioner, HRE Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954 AIR SC 282).
  7. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954 AIR SC 388).
  8. Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961 AIR SC 1402).
  9. Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972 SCC 2 11).
  10. State of Rajasthan v. Sajjanlal Panjawat (1974 SCC 1 500).
  11. Padma Charan v. Khageswar (2024 Ori HC) applying Orissa HRE Act 1951, s. 19.
  12. Sudha Ravi Kumar v. Nishanth (2017 Mad HC) on s. 29 TN HR&CE Act.