The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Sm. Charusila Dasi

Case Analysis

The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Sm. Charusila Dasi

May 27, 2025

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Bihar v. Charusila Dasi, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 601, addressed a fundamental question on the nature of religious endowments and the extent of State legislative competence over them under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950. The case involved the interpretation of a trust deed executed by Sm. Charusila Dasi and its characterization as a public or private trust. The primary contention was whether the trust, though partially involving properties located outside Bihar, fell within the purview of the Act, especially when the temples and intended charitable institutions were located within Bihar. The Court held the trust to be a public religious and charitable trust, thereby bringing it within the domain of the Act. It emphasized the principle that public participation, religious ceremonies accessible to the community, and charitable intentions indicate a public character. It also clarified that the Bihar legislature had the competence to regulate such a trust due to its territorial connection and control over trustees operating within the state. This landmark decision reinforced State authority to oversee trusts for the benefit of public religious and charitable purposes, so long as there’s sufficient nexus with the State’s territory.

Keywords: Public Religious Trust, Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, Territorial Nexus, Charitable Endowment, Private vs Public Trust

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Sm. Charusila Dasi

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 230 of 1955

iii) Judgement Date: April 15, 1959

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

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

vi) Author: Justice S. K. Das

vii) Citation: [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 601

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 – Sections 1(2), 2(1), 3, 59, 70
Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, 245, 246, Schedule VII, List III, Entry 28

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None explicitly overruled.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Trust Law, Religious Endowment Law, Administrative Law, Public Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case examines the enforceability and scope of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, on a trust partly situated outside Bihar. Sm. Charusila Dasi, widow of Akshaya Kumar Ghosh, had established a trust in 1938 through a formal deed. Her intention was religious and charitable – establishing temples and healthcare institutions in Bihar, despite owning properties in Calcutta as part of the endowment. After the Act came into force, authorities deemed the trust public and sought to regulate it. Dasi resisted, claiming her trust was private, immune from the Act. The High Court accepted her argument, ruling in her favour under Article 226 of the Constitution. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.

The apex court scrutinised the language and intent of the trust deed. It considered prior case laws, doctrines on public and private religious endowments, and the extent of legislative reach. The Supreme Court overruled the High Court and held that the trust was public in character and subject to the Bihar Act despite part of the trust property being located in Calcutta. This judgement reaffirmed the principle that trusts having a tangible nexus to a State and serving public religious or charitable purposes are subject to that State’s legislative oversight.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Sm. Charusila Dasi executed a trust deed on March 11, 1938, in Deoghar (now in Jharkhand, then Bihar). She transferred several immovable properties in Deoghar and Calcutta into the trust, with an annual income of approximately Rs. 87,839. The trust aimed to construct temples, install deities, hold festivals, and establish a hospital and charitable dispensary for Hindu females and the general public. The deed mentioned daily worship (sheba puja), specific Hindu festivals, and made provisions for public offerings (pronamis), signifying public participation.

After the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 came into force, the President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts issued notices under Sections 59 and 70, requiring compliance. Dasi contended that her trust was private – a family trust for her personal deity, and that the Act was both unconstitutional and inapplicable since the properties were partially outside Bihar.

She approached the Patna High Court under Article 226, which agreed with her and quashed the proceedings initiated by the State Board. The State of Bihar challenged the High Court’s ruling before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the trust created by Sm. Charusila Dasi is a public or private religious trust.

ii. Whether the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 applies to trusts with properties located partly outside Bihar.

iii. Whether the Act infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, particularly Article 19(1)(f) and 26.

iv. Whether the Bihar Legislature had legislative competence under Article 245 and 246 to regulate such a trust.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The trust deed explicitly establishes a public religious and charitable trust. It includes festivals and public worship involving the broader Hindu community, not just family worship. The offerings (pronamis) from the public become trust assets, and a hospital and charitable dispensary were intended for the public benefit, not family usage[1].

They argued that the intention of the settlor, the structure of the trust deed, and the inclusion of non-family trustees demonstrate the public nature of the endowment. Further, the presence of deities accessible to the public, rituals of known Hindu festivals, and administrative roles given to residents of Deoghar underline the trust’s public character[2].

They further submitted that the Act applies to trusts situated within Bihar even if some properties are elsewhere, given the territorial nexus doctrine. Since the primary activities – worship, festivals, hospital – were intended in Bihar, the legislative competence of Bihar was not exceeded[3].

They relied on Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, [1956] S.C.R. 756, to highlight the difference between private and public trusts – stating that the presence of beneficiaries from the general public marks a trust as public[4].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The trust is a private endowment, created solely for the worship of a family deity, Srigopal Ji, originally established in her residence. The inclusion of additional objects like a hospital were subsidiary and conditional upon the completion of religious structures. Hence, the trust’s primary purpose remains religious and private[5].

They argued that the Act is unconstitutional, violating Articles 19(1)(f) and 26 by interfering with the respondent’s rights to manage her religious affairs and property. Further, it lacks territorial competence to apply to properties located in Calcutta (West Bengal).

They relied on In re Charusila Dasi, I.L.R. [1946] 1 Cal. 473, where the Calcutta High Court had treated the trust as partly private for income tax purposes.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950:

Section 1(2): Extent of the Act.
Section 2(1): Definitions including ‘religious trust’.
Section 3: Application to trusts with any property in Bihar.
Sections 59 & 70: Mandatory returns and assessment of fee.

ii. Constitution of India:

Article 245: Territorial scope of laws.
Article 246 & Schedule VII: Distribution of legislative powers.
Article 19(1)(f) (now repealed): Right to property.
Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs.
Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue writs.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The trust is public in nature. Public festivals, community participation, charitable objectives, and structure of management evidence a public religious endowment[6].

ii. The Act does not apply to private endowments, but this trust is not private[7].

iii. The Bihar legislature is competent to legislate for trusts located in Bihar, even if part of the property lies outside, due to the doctrine of territorial nexus[8].

iv. The Act does not infringe fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, including Articles 19 and 26, as it regulates for public benefit[9].

b. OBITER DICTA

i. Trustees administering public trusts within Bihar are subject to Bihar law, even if some trust assets lie in other states, so long as administration occurs within Bihar.

c. GUIDELINES

When interpreting a religious trust deed, courts must look beyond form to function and intention.
Public participation, particularly through festivals, pronamis, and trusteeship, indicates a public trust.
Charitable objects like hospitals cannot be dismissed as ancillary where expressly mentioned and endowed.
A State can regulate religious trusts having territorial connection, even if part of the property lies elsewhere.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case marks a significant affirmation of State authority to regulate religious trusts for public good, reinforcing accountability and public interest in charitable and religious administration. The Court prudently balanced religious freedom with the need for regulatory oversight in trusts involving public funds and interests. The reliance on precedent, notably Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, anchored the judgment in doctrinal clarity on private vs. public trust distinctions.

The ruling further clarified the constitutional interpretation of territorial nexus, affirming that local legislative jurisdiction is not limited by the location of all assets, provided the trust’s function and effect lie within the State. This precedent is vital in ensuring that religious and charitable institutions do not escape regulation merely by holding assets outside the State, especially when they serve local communities.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, [1956] S.C.R. 756
[2] Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S. P. Sahi, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 583
[3] Mahant Moti Das v. S. P. Sahi, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 563
[4] State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, [1957] S.C.R. 874
[5] Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, [1958] S.C.R. 1355
[6] Sardar Gurdyal Singh v. The Rajah of Faridkote, (1894) L.R. 21 I.A. 171
[7] In re Charusila Dasi, I.L.R. [1946] 1 Cal. 473