Telangana HC Strikes Down Provision Excluding Women From Trustee Role
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court struck down a provision of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987, which had excluded women from being considered as legal representatives of the founder trustee of the family.
On the death of Rani Santhosh Saincher, her daughter Shalini Saincher filed the writ petition assailing the validity of Explanation II of the proviso to Section 17(1) of the Act.
The petitioner claimed to be the successor-in-interest to the family of the late Maharaja Kishan Pershad, instrumental in building a number of temples in and around Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, the jagir of Kishan Pershad extended up to 196 villages and the petitioner had the right to manage the Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy temple at Shaikpet.
It was contended that the application submitted by the petitioner was returned in view of the prohibition contained in Section 17 of the Act.
The court appointed senior advocate P. Venugopal as amicus. He and M. Vidyasagar, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned provision was contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and discriminatory. It was also argued that the proviso offended fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution.
The panel, speaking through the Chief Justice, referred to various judgments of the apex court and said that the object of Section 17 of the Act was to provide a representation to the founder in the board of trustees of a trust or a religious endowment.
Explanation II of proviso to Section 17(1) of the Act did not disclose any intelligible differentia to exclude women from the membership of the family of the founder. The panel also found that a female member of the family of the founder stood on the same footing as a male member.
The statutory right of succession to the office of the trustee cannot be deprived to a female member merely because she was a woman, the panel said. No justification has been offered by the respondents in the counter affidavit for exclusion of female members of the family of the founder.
The petitioner’s exclusion has not been shown to be made for any justifiable cause and therefore, the rule of equality has to prevail.
Allowing the writ petition, the panel said, “We need not strike down the whole of Explanation II of proviso to Section 17(1) of the Act. Therefore, the words in Explanation II of proviso to Section 17(1) of the Act “and so in agnatic line of succession for the time being in force”, which offends the guarantee contained in Article 14 of the Constitution, are declared ultra vires. Accordingly, it is struck down.”
