ion No 91 of 1964
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights and Civil Appeal No 358 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 9 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ Petition No 1885 of 1962
JP Goyal and Raghunath Singh for the petitioner in WP No 91 of 1964
AK Sen J P Goyal and Raghunath Singh for the appel lants in CA No 35866
BSen and section P Nayar for respondent No 1 in WP No 91 of 1964 and respondents Nos 3 and 4 in CA No 358 of 1966
NN Sharma for respondent No 2 in WP No 9164 and respondents Nos 16 and 17 in CA No 35866
843 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bbargava J
This writ petition and the appeal challenge the validity of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act No 13 of 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act
The facts leading up to the passing of this enactment are that in the year 1910 some eminent educationists assembled at Banaras and founded an Association for the development of Hindi and its propagation throughout the country
This Association was named as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
On the 8th January 1914 it was registered as a Society under the No 21 of 1860 with Head Office at Allahabad under the name of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
The rules and bye laws of the Society laid down the objects of this Association and the manner of its working
It had three classes of members viz special members Vishisht Sadasya permanent members Sthayi Sadasya and ordinary members Sadharan Sadasya
Under the bye laws apart from the original members constituting the Society further mem bers could be admitted under these three classifications on being elected by the working committee of the Society
Under the Rules and bye laws of the Society other bodies could be constituted for carrying on activities of the Society
These included a Governing Body a Working Committee a Hindi University Council Literary Council Sahitya Samiti Library Committee Parchar Samiti and Rashtriaya Bhasha Prachar Samiti
Through the agencies of these various Committees the Society carried on the work of development and propagation of Hindi of spreading the use of Devnagri scrip of holding examinations and of confer ring Degrees for proficiency in Hindi
The Society owned landed properties and buildings at Allahabad as well as at some other places such as Warding and was holding considerable funds for carrying on its activities
The Society worked very successfully for a number of years
It appears that in the year 1950 some differences arose between the members of the Society and attempt was made to alter the constitution of the Society
while one section wanted the alterations another section was opposed to it
This resulted in litigation
Three different suits were instituted in the civil Courts at Allahabad in this connection and injunctions were sought by one party against the other
Ultimately the Court appointed a Receiver
In view of these circumstances the UP Legislature passed an Act known as the UP Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act No 36 of 1956 under which a statutory body was created under the name of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and the word Sammelan was defined as referring to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan constitu ted under the Act
Under that Act
Under that Act the mana 844 gement and properties of the original Hindi Sahitya Sammelan which was a registered Society were to be taken over by the new statutory Sammelan
That Act was however declared void by the Allahabad High Court on the ground that Act had made the original Sammelan cease to exist and provided for the constitution of a new Sammelan under its terms in which the members of the original Sammelan had no say so that Act infringed the right of the members of the original Sammelan of forming an association guaranteed by article 19 1 c of the Constitution
It was further held that Act was not saved under article 194 of the Constitution
Thereafter the present Act now challenged in this writ petition and the appeal was passed by Parliament under Entry 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
The Act itself in section 2 contained the necessary declaration to give legislative competence to Parliament under that Entry
The Act first contained in section 2 a declaration in the following words  Whereas the objects of the institution known as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan which has its head office at Allahabad are such as to make the instituation one of national importance it is hereby declared that the institution known as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is an institution of national importance
 Having declared this institution as an institution of national importance th  Act proceeded to define Sammelan as meaning the institution known as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan incorporated under this Act while the word Society was defined to mean the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan which has its head office at Allahabad and is registered under the  Under section 41 of the Act the Sannnelan was constituted which was to consist of the first members of the Sammelan and all persons who may hereafter become members thereof in accordance with the rules made in that behalf
This statutory Sammelan was constituted as a body corporate by the name of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and under sub section 2 of section 4 it was to have perpetual succession and a common seal with power subject to the provision of the
Act to acquire hold and dispose of property and to contract and to sue and be sued by that name
The Head Office of the Sammelan was to be at Allahabad
Under subs4 of section the first members of the Sammelan were to consist of persons who immediately before the appointed day a were special members Vishisht Sadasya of the Society 8 45 b were
life members Sthayi Sadasya of the Society
c had been Presidents of the Society or d were awarded the Mangla Prasad Paritoshik by the Society
This sub section
4 of section 4 was amended retrospectively with effect from the date that the Act came into force by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Amendment Act No 1 of 1963 and the first members of the Sammelan were under this amendment declared to be a all persons who immediately before the appointed day were members of the Society b all persons who before that day had been Presidents of the Society and c all persons who before that day were awarded the Mangla Prasad Paritoshik by the Society
It is not necessary to give in detail the other provisions of the Act except that it may be mentioned that the Act provided for vesting of all property movable or immovable or belonging to the Society in the Sammelan transferring all rights and Liabilities of the Society to the Sammelan converting reference to the Society in any law to the Sammelan and other similar necessary provisions
The Act itself did not make any provision for the future membership of the Sammelan but under section 121 a the first Governing Body of the Sammelan was directed to make rules in respect of matters relating to membership including qualifications and disqualifications For membership of the Sammelan
The first Governing Body was to be constituted under section 8 and was to consist of a Chairman a Secretary and 13 other members
This Governing Body was to be constituted by a notification in the Official Gazette by the Central Government
The thirteen members were to be chosen as follows  i one member to represent the Ministry of the Central Government dealing with education iione member to represent the Ministry of the Central Government dealing with finance iiinot more than three members from among the former Presidents of the Society and ivthe remaining number from among persons who are in the opinion of the Central Govern 846 ment eminent in the field of Hindi language or Hindi literature
It was this first Governing Body which was to make rules on all matters relating to membership of the Sammelan under section 12 1 a of the Act
These rules were not have effect until they were approved by the Central
Government and were published by the first Governing Body in such manner as the Central Government may by order direct
A copy of the rules was also to be laid before each House of Parliament
Counsel for respondent No 1 placed before us a copy of the rules which according to him have been made by the first Governing Body with the approval of the Government and have been published as required
The Rules come into force on 1st of February 1971
The petition under article 32 and the petition under article 226 out of which the civil appeal arises were both moved much earlier and long before these Rules were framed
These petitions challenged the validity of the Act without taking into account the actual Rules framed mainly on the ground that he Act had interfered with the right of the petitioners to form association Linder article 191c of the Constitution and was not protected by article 194
In the petition before the Allahabad High Court the Court held that since all the members of the Society had also become members of the Sammelan under the Act there was no infringement of the right to form association so that the Act could not be declared invalid on that ground
The writ petition in this Court has been filed by only one member of the Society while the petition in the High Court and the appeal against the judgment of the High Court which is before us were filed by the original Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as one party and 72 members of that Sammelan joining as other petitioning parties In the civil appeal thus the grievance that the Act ha infringed the fundamental right has been put forward both by the Society itself as well as by 72 of its members including members of the Working Committee and the Governing Body of the society
They have all come up to this Court against the decision of the High Court in this appeal by special leave
In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition before the High Court as well as in the writ petition in this Court the position taken up was that the Act in fact does not deprive the Society and its members of any rights which they had under the constitution of the Society and did not interfere with their right of association inasmuch as all the members of the Society have been included as members of the Sammelan under the Act
The High Court in fact dismissed the writ petition on accepting this submission put forward on behalf of the respondents
In the arguments before us learned counsel for 847 respondent No 1 however took UP a different position and urged that the Act keeps the Society in tact as it was where a new Sammelan is constituted under the Act for the purpose of managing the institution which has been declared as an institution of national importance
He put this aspect of the case in the forefront but in the alternative he also argued the case on the basis of the position taken up in the counter affidavits in the High Court and in this Court as mentioned above
We consider it convenient to first deal with the case as was specifically put forward in the counter affidavits
In these counter affidavits the position taken up is that having declared the old Hindi Sahitya Sammelan which was a Society registered under the  as an insti tution of national importance Parliament has proceeded to legislate in respect of it under Entry 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule in order that its administration may not suffer as a result of the quarrels that were going on inter se between the members of the Society
It was for this purpose that a first Governing Body was constituted to take over the management temporarily
The Act was designed to reconstitute the Sammelan in such manner that it could work successfully and without difficulties and in making provision for this purpose all members of the old Society were included as members of the Sammelan so that their right of forming association may not be taken away from them
The Society was never dissolved instead of the Society remaining a body registered under the  it was converted into a statutory Sammelan under the Act
It however appears on examination of the provisions of the Act that the Sammelan under the Act is composed not only of persons who were members of the Society but of others who have been given the right to be members of the Sammelan without the consent of the preexisting members
Under section 44 itself as retrospectively amended in 1963 apart from persons who were members of the Society others who have been made members of the Sammelan are all persons who before that day had been Presidents of the Society and all persons who before that day were awarded the Mangla Prasad Paritoshik by the Society
These members have been added without any option being available to the existing members of the Society to elect or refuse to elect them as members which was the right they possessed under the constitution of the Society itself
Further under section 12 1 a very wide powers were given to the first Governor Body to make rules in respect of matters relating to membership including qualifications and disqualifications for membership of the Sammelan
Under this power the rules framed could make 10 L1100 SupCI71 848 provision for admission of persons as members whom the original members of the Society may never have liked to admit in their Society
The number of such new members could even be so large as to leave the original members in a small minority with the result that those members could become totally ineffective in the Society
Even in the Rules actually framed there is provision for admission of members under various classes
In addition to the persons mentioned in section 44 of the Act Rule 6 proVides for membership of persons who may become Sabhapatis of the Sammelan for any annual session subsequent to the Act coming into force and persons who may be awarded Mangala Prasad Paritoshik subsequent to the Act coming into force
Under Rules 7 8 and 9 new Vishisht Sadasyas Sthayi Sadasyas and Sadharan Sadasyas can be admitted to the membership of the Sammelan on payment of Rs 1000 or Rs 300  as the case may be
This admission to membership according to the Rules will be made by the new Karya Samiti to be elected under the Rules and not by the Working Committee of the original members of the Association
Further under section 72 of the Act the Governing Body of the new Sammelan is to consist of such number of persons not exceeding 55 as the Central Government may from time to time determine and out of these a number not exceeding 7 are to be nominated by the Central Government from among educations of repute and eminent Hindi scholars
These 7 nominees are to be chosen by the Central Government and on becoming members of the Governing Body under Rule
11 they become members of the Sammelan
Under Rule 10 educational institutions can also be admitted as Sanstha Sadasyas of the Sammelan by the new Karya Samiti and thereupon a representative of each of such institution has right to participate in  proceedings of the Sammelan exercising all the rights of a member
It will thus be seen that the Sammelan which has come into existence under the Act is not identical with the Sammelan which was registered as a Society under the 
Certain persons have been added as members by the Act and by the Rules
Admission of future members is no longer at the choice of the original members who  had formed the Asso ciationPersons in whose admission as members the members of the Society had no hand can become members and get the right of associating with them in the Sammelan without the original members having any right to obecti
this is clear interference with the right to form an association which had been exercised by the members of the Society by forming the Society with its constitution under which they were members and future members could only come in as a result of their choice by being elected by their Working Committee
We are unable to agree with the High Court that the new Sammelan as constituted under the Act 849 is identical with the Society and that all the rights of forming an association which were being exercised by members of the Society have been kept in tact under the Act
It was argued that the right guaranteed by Article 19 1 c is only to form an association and consequently any regulation of the affairs of the Association after it has been formed will not amount to a breach of that right
It is true that it has been held by this Court that after an Association has been formed and the right under article 19 1 c has been exercised by the members forming it they have no right to claim that its activities must also be permitted to be carried on in the manner they desire
Those cases are however inapplicable to the present case
The Act does not merely regulate the administration of the affairs of the Society what it does is to alter the composition of the Society itself as we have indicated above
The result of this change in composition is that the members who voluntarily formed the Association are now compelled to act in that Association with other members who have been imposed as members by the Act and in whose admission to membership they had no say
Such alteration in the composition of the Association itself clearly interferes with the right to continue to function as members of the Association which was voluntarily formed by the original founders
The right to form an association in our opinion necessarily implies that the persons forming the Association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the Associate on
Any law by which members are introduced in the voluntary Association without any option being given to the members to keep them out or any law which
takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily Joined it will be a law violating the right to form an association
If we were to accept the submission that the right guaranteed by article 19  1  c is confined to the initial stage of forming an Association and does not protect the right to continue the Association with the membership either chosen by the founders or regulated by rules made by the Association itself the right would be meaningless because as soon as an Association is formed a law may be passed interfering with its composition
 so that the Association formed may not be able to function at all
The right can be effective only if it is held to include within it the right to continue the Association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon by the persons forming the Association
This aspect was recognised by this Court though not in plain words in the case of O K Ghosh and Another vs E X Joseph
The Court in that case was considering the validity of Rule 4 B of the Central Civil Service Conduct Rules 1955 which laid down that 11963 Supp 3 SCR 789 850 No Government servant shall join or continue to be a member of any Service Association of Government servants awhich has not within a period of six months from its formation obtained the recognition of the Government under the Rules prescribed in that behalf or brecognition in respect of which has been refused or withdrawn by the Government under the said Rules
 This Court held It is not disputed that the fundamental rights guaranteed by article 19 can be claimed by Government servants
article 33 which confers power on the Parliament to modify the rights in their application to the Armed Forces clearly brings out the fact that all citizens including Government servants are entitled to Claim the rights guaranteed by article 19
Thus the validity of the impugned rule has to be judged on the basis that the respondent and his co employees are entitled to form Associations or Unions
It is clear that Rule 4 B imposes a restriction on this right
It virtually compels a Government servant to withdraw his membership of the Service Association of Government Servants as soon as recognition accorded to the said citation is withdrawn or if after the Association is formed no recognition is Aaccorded to it within six months
In other words the right to form an Association is conditioned by the existence of the recognition of the said Association by the Government
If the Association obtains the recognition and continues to enjoy it Government servants can become members of the said Association if the Association does not secure recognition from the Government or recognition granted to it is withdrawn Government servants must cease to be the members of the said Association
That is the plain effect of the impugned rule
 The Court in the above passage thus accepted the principle that the Government servants who may have formed an Association
could not be compelled to resign from it by imposition of a condition of recognition of this Association by the Government and that if the Government servants are required to cease to be members that would be a violation of the right under article 19 1 c
The Court of course in that case further proceeded to examine whether such a restriction on the right could be justified under 851 article 194 or not
That case thus supports our view that the right to form an Association includes the right to its continuance and any law altering the composition of the Association compulsorily will be a breach of the right to form the Association
This Court had also proceeded on the same basis in the case of State of Madras vs V G Row1
Though this aspect was not clearly brought out in the judgment the point which came up for consideration was decided on the basis that persons forming an Association had a right under article 19 1 c to see that the composition of the Association continues as voluntarily agreed to by them
That decision was given in an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Madras reported in V G Rowv
The State of Madras2
In the High Court this principle was clearly formulated by Rajamannar CJ in the following words  The word form therefore must refer not only to the initial commencement of the association but also to the continuance of the association as such
 The Act insofar as it interferes with the composition of them Society in constituting the Sammelan therefore violates the right of the original members of the Society to form an association guaranteed under article 191 c
Article 194 on the face of it cannot be called in aid to claim validity for the Act
Under article 194 reasonable restrictions can be imposed only in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or in the interests of public order or morality
It has not been contended on behalf of the respondent nor could it be contended that this alteration of the constitution of the Society in the manner laid down by the Act was
in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or in the interests of public order or morality
Not being protected under article 194 if must be held that the provision contained in the Act for reconstituting the Society into the Sammelan is void
Once that section is declared void the whole Act becomes
ineffective inasmuch as the formation of the new Sammelan is the very basis for all the other provisions contained in the Act
In view of this position emerging in the course of argu ments Mr B Sen put forward an entirely different and alter native case before us which we have mentioned earlier
position he took up was that the Act nowhere specifically lays
down that the Society small stand dissolved while it does constitute a new Sammelan
According to him therefore it should 1  2 AIR 1951 Mad
852 be inferred that while the Society still continues to exist in its original form the law has brought into existence a new Sammelan to which all the functions properties etc
of the Society have passed under the Act
There are three reasons why this alternative submission cannot be accepted as ensuring the validity of the Act
The first is that the specific case taken by the respondents has been that the Act reconstitutes the Society and does not create a separate and indepedent body in the form of a new Sammelan
Secondly even if it be accepted that a new Sammelan has been constituted by the Act the question will arise of the Legislative competence of Parliament to pass such a law
Constitution of Societies is under List 11 of the Seventh Schedule
Parliament purported to exercise legislative power under Entry 63 of List I on the basis of a declaration that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad was an institution of national importance
The institution that was declared was the Society itself
It was not a case where the Society could be distinguished from some other institution which might have been declared as an institution of national importance There can of course be cases where a Society may be running a college a school or some other like institution in which case Parliament may declare that particular institution as of national importance without declaring the Society as such In the present case what section 2 of the Act did was to declare the Society itself as an institution of national importance and consequently Parliament became competent to legislate in respect of the Society
On the interpretation now sought to be put forward the Act keeps that Society in tact but deprives it of all its functions and properties and transfers them to a newly constituted body viz the Sammelan as defined under the Aet
This Sammelan is itself a body corporate and that Sammelan has never been declared as an institution of national importance
The only institutaion that was declared as of national importance was the Society which of course earlier carried the same name as the new Sammelan
Parliament was therefore not competent to legislate in respect of this newly constituted Sammelan which at no stage had been declared as an institution of national importance
The third reason why this submission must be rejected is that if we were to hold that Parliament pased this Act so as to transfer all the properties and assets of the Society to the Sammelan the Act would contravene article 191f of the Constitution
On this interpretation what the Act purports to do is to take away all the properties of the Society leaving the Society as an existing body and give them to the new Sammelan
This Sammelan is a new separate and distinct legal entity from the Society
The Society is thus  deprived of all its properties by the Act
Such a law depriving the Society of its properties al 8 5 3 together cannot be held to be a reasonable restriction in the public interest on the right of the Society to hold the property
The property under section 5 of the  vested in the Governing Body of the Society
The members of the Governing Body therefore had the right to hold the property under article 191f and they having been deprived of that property have rightly approached the Courts for redress of their grievance
In this connection counsel for the respondents relied on decision of this Court in The Board of Trustees Ayurvedic and Unnanii Tibia College Delhi vs The State of Delhi and Another1 where the Board of Trustees of the Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbit College Delhi was dissolved by the Tibbia College Act 1952 and the property which had vested in the Board of Trustees passed to the newly constituted Board under the impugned Act
The Court held that there was no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by article 191f or article 31 That decision however proceeded on the basis that the property of the original Society registered under the had vested in the Board of Trustees which had been dissolved and the property thereafter did not vest in the members of the Society in view of the provisions of the Act of 1860
In these circumstances it was held that no one could complain that his right to property under article 31 or his right to hold the property under article 19 1 f had been violated by the impugned Act
In the present case the applicability of article 191f is being considered by us on the assumption that the old Society still exists as it was and yet all its properties have been transferred to the Sammelan
If the Society still exists so does its Governing Body in whom the property of the Society vested
The Act thus deprives the members of the Governing Body of the property which still continued to vest in them in spite of the passing of the Act
This total deprivation of property instead of regulating the management of the affairs of the Society or its properties cannot clearly be justified as a reasonable restriction in public interest
It is true that at the time when the Act was passed litigation was going on between the members of the Society and the affairs of the Society were probably in a mess
The remedy however could not lie in depriving the Society of its property altogether
Reasonable restrictions could have been imposed so as to ensure the proper preservation of the property of the Society and its proper management
If the law is passed not merely for ensuring proper management and administration of the property but for totally depriving the persons in whom the property vested of their 1 1962 Suppl
I SCR 156 854 right to hold the property the law cannot be justified as a reasonable restriction under article 195
Consequently even on this alternative position taken up by counsel for the respondents the Act cannot be held to be valid
As a result the petition and the appeal are both allowed with costs
The Act is declared to be invalid so that there will be restraint on the concerned bodies including the Union Government from taking or continuing any action under the Act
There will be one hearing fee
RKPS Petition and Appeal allowed


Summary:
The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan hereinafter referred to as the Society was a registered society founded for the development and propagation of Hindi
After a number of years of its successful working differences arose between its members and this resulted in litigation
in 1956 the Uttar Pradesh legislature passed the UP Sahitya Sammelan Act under which a statutory body was created under the name of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
This act was declared void by the Allahabad High Court as violating the freedom of association guaranteed under article 191c of the Constitution
Thereafter Parliament enacted the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act 1962legislating under entry 63 list I of the Seventh Schedule declaringthat the institution known as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is an institution of national importance
By the Act a statutory sammelan was constituted as a body corporate by the name of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
Under section 41 of the Act the Sammelan was to consist of the first members of the Society and all persons who might become members thereafter in accordance with the rules made in that behalf by the first Governing Body to be constituted by the Central Government by notification
The Act provided for vesting in the Sammelan of all property movable or immovable of or belonging to the society
Petitions under Article 226 in the High Court and under Article 32 in this Court were filed challenging the constitutionality of the Act mainly on the ground that the Act interfered with the right of the petitioners to form association under Article 191 c of the Constitution
The High Court held that since all the members of the society had also become members of the Sammelan under the Act there was no infringement of the right to form association
In the appeal and in the petition under Article 32 the respondent contended that having declared the old Hindi Sabitya Sammelan which was a society registered under the as an institution of national importance Parliament has proceeded to legislate in respect of it under entry 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule in order that its administration may not suffer as a result of the quarrels that were going inter be between the members of the society it was for this purpose that a first Governing Body was constituted to take over the management temporarily the Act was designed to reconstitute the Sammelan in such a manner that it could worm successfully and without difficulties and in making provisions for this purpose all members of the old society were included as members of the Sammelan 8 4 1 so that their right to form association may not be taken away from them Alternatively the respondent took up the position that the Act no where specifically laid down that the society shall stand dissolved while it constituted a new Sammelan and therefore it should be inferred that while the society still continued to exist in its original form the law has brought into existence a new Sammelan to which all the functions and the properties etc of the society have been passed
Allowing the petition and the appeal
HELD  Under section 121 a very wide powers are given to the first governing body to make rules in respect of matters relating to membership including qualifications and disqualifications for membership of the Sammelan
Under this power the rules framed could make provisions for admission of persons as members whom the original members of society may never have liked to admit in their Society
The number of such new members could even be so large as to leave the original members in a small minority with the result that those members
could become totally ineffective in the society
Thus the Sammelan which has come into existence is not identical with the Sammelan which was a registered society under the  This is clear interference with the right to form a society which has been exercised by the members of the Society by forming the Society with its constitution under which they were members
The Act does not merely regulate the admi nistration of the affairs of the Society what it does is to alter the composition of the society itself
The result of this change in composition is that the members who voluntarily formed the society are now compelled to act in that Association with other members who have been imposed as members by the Act and in whose admission to membership they had no say
The right to form association necessarily implies that the persons forming the society have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association
Any law by which members are introduced in the voluntary association without any option being given to the members to keep them out or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined
it will be a law violating the right to form association
847 H 849 C E The right guaranteed by Article 191c cannot be confined to the initial stage of forming an association
if it were to be so confined the right would be meaningless because as soon as an association is formed a law may be passed interfering with its composition so that the association formed may not be able to function at all
The right can be effective only if it is held to include within it the right to continue the association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon by the persons forming the association
And Article 194 on the face of it cannot be called in aid to claim lidity for the Act
Therefore the provisioncontained in the Act for reconstituting the society into the Sammelan is void
The whole Act becomes ineffective in as much as the formation of the new Sammelan is the very basis for all the other provisions in the Act
849 F H 851 E OK Ghosh and Another vs E X Joseph 1963 SUppl
3 SCR 789 State of Madras vs V G Row  and V G Row vs The State of Madras AIR 1951 Mad
147 referred to
The alternative submission cannot be accepted as ensuring the validity of the Act
First the specific case taken by the respondent has been that the Actreconstitutes the Society and does not create a separate and independent body in the form of a new Sammelan
Secondly even if it be acceptedthat a new Sammelan has been constituted the question of 842 legislative competence of Parliament to pass such a law will arise
The Sammelan is itself a body corporate and that Sammelan has never been declared as an institution of national importance
The only institution that was so declared was the society which of course earlier carried the same name as the new Sammelan
Parliament was therefore not competent to legislate in respect of this newly constituted Sammelan which at no stage has been declared as an institution of national importance
Thirdly if it were to be held that Parliament passed this Act so as to transfer all the properties and assets of the Society to the Sammelan the Act would contravene Article 191f of the Constitution
The Sammelan is a new separate and distinct legal entity from the Society
The Society is thus deprived of all its properties by the Act and such a law depriving the Society of its properties altogether cannot be held to be a reasonable restriction in the public interest on the right of the society to hold the property
The applicability of Article 191f is on the assumption that the old Society still exists as it was and yet its properties have been transferred to the Sammelan
If the Society still exists so does its Governing Body in whom the property of the Society vested
The Act thus deprives the members of the Governing Body of the property which still continued to vest in them in spite of the passing of the Act
This total deprivation of property instead of regulating the management of the affairs of the Society of its property cannot clearly be justified as a reasonable restriction in public interest
If the law is passed not merely for ensuring proper management and administration of the property but for totally depriving the persons in whom the property vested of their right to hold the property the law cannot be justified as reasonable restriction under Article 195
852 B H 853 E 854 A The Board of Trustees Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College Delhi vs The State of Delhi  Anr
1962 Suppl
I SCR 156 referred to