A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case State of Bihar v. Bhabapritananda Ojha [1959 Supp. (2) SCR 624] centers around the constitutional validity and territorial applicability of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950. It deals with the Baidyanath Temple in Deoghar, Bihar, whose administration was governed by a judicial scheme framed by the Burdwan District Court and approved by the Calcutta High Court. The respondent, Bhabapritananda Ojha, challenged the application of the Act on the basis that part of the temple’s properties lie outside Bihar and the temple itself was being administered under a court-approved scheme by authorities outside the territorial jurisdiction of Bihar. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the Act was constitutionally valid and intra vires the Bihar Legislature. The Court observed that the Act validly applied to religious trusts within Bihar, even if some of their properties were located in other states, and that the Bihar Legislature had the legislative competence to frame such laws. The judgment emphasized the doctrine of territorial nexus, limitations of extra-territorial legislation under Article 245 of the Constitution, and the supremacy of state laws with Presidential assent under Article 254(2). The appeal by the State was allowed, setting aside the Patna High Court’s order that had quashed proceedings under the Act.

Keywords: Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, legislative competence, extra-territorial jurisdiction, Article 226, territorial nexus, Section 92 CPC, public religious trusts.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: State of Bihar & Others v. Bhabapritananda Ojha

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 236 of 1954

iii) Judgement Date: April 15, 1959

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: S.R. Das (C.J.), S.K. Das, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, JJ.

vi) Author: Justice S.K. Das

vii) Citation: State of Bihar v. Bhabapritananda Ojha, [1959] Supp. 2 SCR 624

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, Sections 3, 4(5), 28, 29; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 92; Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, 27, 245, 254(2)

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly overruled

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Hindu Religious Trust Law, Jurisdictional Law, Public Trusts, Civil Procedure

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case traces its origins to a long-standing religious institution—the Baidyanath Temple at Deoghar, a highly revered Hindu shrine. The management of the temple has historically been disputed among religious functionaries, especially the Sardar Panda (chief priest) and the pandas (pilgrim assistants). The colonial and princely-era conflicts over the temple’s control led to judicial intervention under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which culminated in the framing of a management scheme by the District Judge of Burdwan in 1901, later endorsed by the Calcutta High Court. This court-approved administrative mechanism continued until the passage of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, when Bihar attempted to place all religious trusts under the control of a state board. The respondent, who administered the temple under the court’s scheme, resisted this, claiming the Act was ultra vires. The Supreme Court, faced with the challenge of determining the territorial and constitutional limits of the Act, ultimately upheld its validity, grounding its reasoning in legislative competence and statutory construction.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Baidyanath Temple, situated in Deoghar, Bihar, is a religious institution of antiquity, dedicated to Lord Shiva. The administration of the temple has been historically managed by a body of pandas, and specifically the Sardar Panda, who is a descendant of the original priestly family. In 1897, due to mismanagement and internal strife, a suit was filed under Section 92 of the CPC in the Burdwan District Court, resulting in a scheme for temple management. The Calcutta High Court confirmed and later modified the scheme, ensuring judicial oversight over the religious trust.

In 1951, the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 came into force, which established a Board for oversight of religious trusts. The Board, invoking Section 59 of the Act, sought information and regulatory control over the Baidyanath Temple. Bhabapritananda Ojha, then Sardar Panda, challenged this action through a writ petition under Article 226 before the Patna High Court, arguing that the temple was governed by a scheme framed and enforced by courts outside Bihar and that some properties of the temple were situated in West Bengal. The Patna High Court quashed the Board’s actions, accepting the extra-territoriality and jurisdictional concerns raised. The State of Bihar appealed to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 was ultra vires the Bihar Legislature due to legislative overreach.

ii) Whether the Bihar Legislature had the authority to legislate on trusts whose properties extended beyond Bihar’s borders.

iii) Whether judicial schemes framed by courts outside Bihar are immune from being superseded by a state statute enacted subsequently.

iv) Whether Section 4(5) of the Act, which excluded the application of Section 92 CPC to Bihar trusts, is valid.

v) Whether such legislative action leads to extra-territorial operation in violation of Article 245.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the Appellants submitted that:

The Bihar Legislature acted within its competence under Entry 28 of List III (Concurrent List) which authorizes legislation on “charities and charitable institutions, religious and charitable endowments and religious institutions” [1]. The temple is physically located in Bihar, and thus the religious trust is fundamentally subject to Bihar’s jurisdiction. They further argued that territorial nexus gives the Bihar Legislature valid power to regulate the institution, regardless of where part of its property lies. Relying on State of Bihar v. Charusila Dasi ([1959] Supp. 2 SCR 601), the appellants emphasized that the situs of the religious institution is determinative of jurisdiction [2].

They asserted that Section 92 CPC, being part of procedural law, could be rightfully excluded under Section 4(5) of the Trusts Act, especially after the President’s assent under Article 254(2). They contended that the High Court misapplied the doctrine of comity of courts by suggesting that the Bihar statute interfered with the jurisdiction of West Bengal courts, which was not the case since the law only regulated trusts situated in Bihar.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The Calcutta High Court and the Burdwan District Court were in “seisin” of the Baidyanath Temple due to the 1901 scheme. Therefore, any action by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts under the 1950 Act constituted an unlawful interference with the jurisdiction of a foreign (West Bengal) court. They further argued that the trust properties included lands and assets outside Bihar, hence the Act had extra-territorial implications, making it void under Article 245.

They also relied on the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, especially Clause 39, arguing that the Calcutta High Court retained jurisdiction in respect of pre-existing schemes. They claimed that the scheme could be modified only by the Calcutta High Court, and hence, Bihar could not legislate to override judicial control already in force.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 – Sections 3, 4(5), 28, 29, 59, 70

ii) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 92

iii) Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, 27, 245, 254(2)

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that the Bihar Legislature has full authority to legislate for religious trusts situated within the state, even if some assets are located outside. The doctrine of territorial nexus permits such application, and the statute does not suffer from extra-territoriality. The Act is intra vires the State Legislature. The presence of the temple within Bihar suffices to confer jurisdiction.

The Court also upheld Section 4(5) of the Act as valid, which excluded the applicability of Section 92 CPC to religious trusts in Bihar. The jurisdiction of the Burdwan District Court or the Calcutta High Court under Section 92 thus ceased. Further, the Bihar law had received Presidential assent, giving it precedence under Article 254(2) over conflicting provisions.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine of comity of courts applies primarily in international contexts, not in inter-state legislative analysis under the Indian Constitution. The Court emphasized that courts must respect validly enacted laws, and cannot strike them down merely due to inconvenience or perceived jurisdictional overlap.

c. GUIDELINES 

i) For state legislation to override procedural law like Section 92 CPC, it must:

• Be within legislative competence.

• Apply to institutions within territorial jurisdiction.

• Receive Presidential assent if it conflicts with a central law.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court decision in this case sets a precedent on the scope of legislative competence of states under the Indian federal structure. It clarifies that state laws may have incidental effects beyond their territory if the subject of legislation (i.e., the temple) is located within the state. The Court reinforced the supremacy of laws passed with Presidential assent under Article 254(2), thereby shielding such laws from constitutional challenges premised on procedural inconsistencies. It also illustrates the balance between judicial oversight of religious institutions and executive regulation through statutory boards.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi, [1959] Supp. 2 SCR 503

[2] State of Bihar v. Charusila Dasi, [1959] Supp. 2 SCR 601

[3] Shailajananda Dutt Jha v. Umeshananda Dutt Jha, (1905) 2 CLJ 460

[4] Umeshananda Dutt Jha v. Sir Ravaneswar Prasad Singh, (1912) 17 CWN 871

[5] Prayag Doss v. Tirumala, ILR 30 Mad 138

b. Important Statutes Referred

[6] Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 1 of 1951)

[7] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 92

[8] Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, 27, 245, 254(2)

[9] Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, Clause 39