V.S. Ramamirtha Ayyar and Others vs M. Narayana Pillai and Seven Ors.

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.—The learned District Munsif of Tiruvayyaru has referred to this Court the following question, which was raised as an

additional issue in a suit--Original Suit No. 216 of 1949 pending before him, namely,

Whether the Temple Entry Authorization Act (Madras Act V of 1947) is ultra vires and illegal as opposed to the fundamental rights declared in the

Constitution Act?

Mr. Venkatasubramania Ayyar, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, at whose instance this issue was raised, was unable to convince us that the

Act was opposed to any of the provisions of chapter III of the Constitution. On the other hand, Article 25(2)(b) appears to conclusively establish

the validity and constitutional nature of the impugned Act, because it is there laid down that nothing in Article 25 shall affect the operation of any

existing law or prevent the State from making any law providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of

a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Now the impugned Act applies only to religious institutions of a public character and under

the provisions of this Act such institutions are thrown open to all classes and sections of Hindus. The Madras Act has, therefore, done something

which the Constitution has expressly permitted. Our answer to the question is that the, impugned Act is not ultra vires or illegal as opposed to any

of the provisions of the Constitution.

Mr. Venkatasubramania Ayyar, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, represented that there may be contentions which the Plaintiffs may raise

without attacking the validity of the Act itself, and he also mentioned in this connection Article 26. On this reference, the only question with which

we are concerned is the validity of the Act. We are not concerned with any other contentions that may be raised in the suit. The question referred

to us we have answered above in unambiguous terms, viz., that the Act is not ultra vires, or illegal. If it is open to the Plaintiffs to raise any

contentions without affecting this answer, they would certainly be entitled to raise them. More than this we cannot say on this reference. The

reference is answered accordingly.