Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm

Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm

Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm

Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm Sdfiudnc

adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
Sdfiudnc adjfmdcfghruoseijdmxklsxmvnhtbhrueiksgnfdm
v
tate contended that it is accountable for overseeing the financial,
economic, and political activities of religions when they pose a threat to
the public order, morals, and health of its population.
In addition, the state contended that all non-essential aspects of religious
organisations are amenable to governmental action.
Attorney general claimed that there is a distinct distinction between fees
and taxes. A number of the items in List I of the Seventh Schedule pertain
to different taxes and duties, but the last entry, entry 96, refers to "fees" for
any of the things included in the list. Similar situation holds true for entries
46 to 62 of List II, which all pertain to taxes, and the final entry of List II,
which handles entirely with "fees" applicable to the various items listed.
 
Respondent-
Respondent maintained that the Authority to charge 'taxes' is vested only
in the Parliament, whereas the State Legislatures are responsible for a
number of 'fees' as the 1951 Act was adopted by the Madras State
Assembly.
The respondent further argued that imposing the 5% levy under the 1951
Act was illegally fraudulent because the State Legislature lacked the
constitutional authority to pass such a statute.
Additionally, it was stated that if a religious group, such as a Hindu sect,
thinks that a ritual must be conducted during a certain time of year and at a
specific time of day in a way defined by the religious group, it must be
conducted in that method exclusively.
Such religious groups should not be recognised as commercial and secular
enterprises, but rather as religious activities and must be treated as
religious matters under Article 26. (b).
 
Judgement
The Supreme Court ruled that the basic aspects of a religion are
determined by the beliefs of that faith. This ought to always be determined
first. Thus, the he standard for Essential Religious Practices
doctrine was outlined.
When a religious group, such as a Hindu sect, prescribes that a ceremony
must be conducted at a certain time of year and during a specific time of
day, then it must be executed in accordance with the sect's specifications.
The court additionally stated that the rationale used to conclude that an
institution participates in commercial operations based only on its use of
commercial goods, employment of servants, and spending of monies,
therefore qualifying it as a secular organisation, was incorrect.
Such religious groups should not be recognised as commercial and secular
enterprises, but rather as religious activities and must be treated as
religious matters under Article 26. (b).
The state shall not intervene with the religious activities protected in
Article 25(2)(a), but it ought to create restrictions or investigate the non-
conformity of religious organisations when they violate morals, health, or
public order.
The government should also investigate religious organisations' economic,
commercial, and political activity. Only in specific instances is it
permissible to meddle with the independence of religious groups.
 
Sections 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 56, and 63 to 69 of the Madras Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Madras Act XIX of 1951) are held
to be ultra vires arts. 19(1)(f), 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
Section 76(1) of the Act is null and invalid because the provision
pertaining to the payment of yearly contributions included in it is a tax
rather than a fee, and so enacting such a clause was outside the legislative
authority of the Madras State Legislature.