Religious endowmentManagerSupreme Court of India

Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts v Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das

(1971) 1 SCC 73119711 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The Mahant of a religious math challenged the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act on the ground that it infringed the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion under Art.26(b) and to administer their property under Art.26(d).
Issue
Whether statutory regulation of the administration of a religious endowment, including the imposition of duties on its manager, violates Art.26.
Held
The legislation was valid. The manager of a religious endowment does not own the property. He holds a position of trust and his rights are confined to the office. The State is competent to regulate administration in the interest of the institution and the public, and such regulation is a reasonable restriction that does not touch the core of the right to manage religious affairs.
Principle
A religious endowment is not the manager's property; the manager holds a position of trust, and the State may regulate its administration in the interest of the institution and the public without violating Art.26.
Cite this

Facts

  • The Mahant of a religious math challenged the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act on the ground that it infringed the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion under Art.26(b) and to administer their property under Art.26(d).

Issue

  1. Whether statutory regulation of the administration of a religious endowment, including the imposition of duties on its manager, violates Art.26.

Held

  • The legislation was valid. The manager of a religious endowment does not own the property. He holds a position of trust and his rights are confined to the office. The State is competent to regulate administration in the interest of the institution and the public, and such regulation is a reasonable restriction that does not touch the core of the right to manage religious affairs.

Ratio decidendi

(1) The manager of a religious endowment has no proprietary right in the property. (2) Regulation of secular administration is distinct from interference with religious practice. (3) Art.26(d) does not immunise the manager from accountability.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Cite in waqf problems to show that the mutawalli's position is analogous: he is a manager, not an owner
  • Useful where a mutawalli argues that the Waqf Board's supervisory jurisdiction infringes religious freedom
  • Pair with Syed Md Salie Labbai v Mohd Hanifa (1976) for the Muslim law equivalent

Cite this

Citation

Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts v Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das (1971) 1 SCC 731

Reported: (1971) 1 SCC 731. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.