INDIA
736
INDIA
mosques over eleven lacs of rupees every year in the
Bombay Presidency alone. Whether this ohlij^ation
is inherited from its predecessors, and if so to wliat
extent, is more than one can venture to say. In any
case it throws out into liold relief the extreme sensi-
tiveness of the British Government to the religious
susccptiljilities of its non-Christian suljjects.
In regard to educational institutions, the British Government in India generously patronizes and aids with grants schools uiul colleges estalilished by individ- uals or associations, whether religious or secular. It is important to note that the Government educational authorities never think of interfering wit h the arrange- ments made in these aided schools for imparting reli- gious instruction. What the Universities Act (VIII of 1004) and the educational codes require is that the .schools and colleges should be efficiently main- tained for imparting secular instruction up to the standard required. The question of the religious instruction of the pupils, even in institutions main- tained by purely religious bodies, is one with which Government does not concern itself. Teachers of religion are not paid by Government as such, but they arc allowed perfect freedom in selecting the subjects of religious instruction, the time of the day chosen, and the method of treatment. One cannot help wondering why this policy of the Government in India, viz., of non-interference with religious teaching in aided schools, cannot be adoptetl in England as a solution of its educational dilhculty.
The British Indian law recognizes not only corporate bodies with rights of property vested in the corpora- tion apart from its individual members, l)ut also the juridical persons or subjects called foundations. A Hinihi or a Mohammedan can establish a religious or charitaljle institution by simply expressing his purpose and endowing it; and the State will give effect to the bovmty or at least protect it. A formal trust is not required for this purpose (I. L. R., 12 Bombay, 247; 7 Allahabad, 178). Under the native .system of govern- ment it was looked upon as a heinous offence to ap- propriate to secular purposes the estate that had once been dedicated to pious uses (W. and B. ; II. L, 202, .SI 7) . The iState, however, in its secularexecutive and judicial capacity hal)itually intervened to prevent fraud and waste in dealing with religious endowments. It was quite in accordance with the legal con.sciousne.ss of the people that the Bomljay Regulation XV'II of 1S27 gave to the colh^ctor a visitatorial power enabling him to en- force an hone-st and proper administration of religious endowments. The connexion of the Government in its executive capacity with Hindu and Mohammedan foundations was brought to an end for Bombay by Bombay .\ct \II of IStiil, and for Bengal and Madras by .\ct XX of 1SG3. But the existence of sacred property anil of the rights and obligations connected with it as objects of the jurisdiction of the civil courts is recognized liy the laws just referred to. The law which protects the foundation against external violence guards it also internally against maladminis- tration, and regulates, conformably to the centred prin- cijdc of the institution, the use of its augmented funds. It is only as subject to this control in the general inter- est of the community that the .'-State through the law- courts recognizes merely artificial persons. It guards property and rights as devoted, and thus belonging, so to speak, to a particular allowed purpose, only on a condition of varying the application when either the jMirpose has become impracticable, useless, or perni- cious, or the funds have augmented in an extraordi- nary measure. This principle is recognized in the law of Kngland as it was in the Roman law, whence indeed it was derived by the modern codes of Europe, and is applied to religious institutions in India. The courts can draw up schemes for the management of a reli- gious endowment and its funds, when internal disputes arise among its administrators or those interested in
it, giving, however, due consideration to the established
practice of the institution and position of the priests or
ministers of worship and of other persons connected
with it (see Ju.stice West's remarks in I.L.H., 12 Bom.
247). Religious endowments have been held not to
be vested in the public at large, but in that part of the
public for whose religious benefit they were originally
established (I. L, R., 7 All. 178).
The Courts in India have always refused to recog- nize the authority of the parishioners or the congrega- tions of a church foundecl by the people themselves or their ancestors, and tlevoted to religious worship ac- cording to the Roman Catholic ritual, to manage or divert its temporalities independently of their ecclesi- astical superiors subject to the See of Rome, much less to interfere in its public worship or change the charac- ter thereof. Whatever be the rights of wliat are called "juntas" in certain parishes, the congregations are not deemed to have any legal existence independent of the vicar under the vicar Apostolic or bishop deriv- ing his authority from the pope (see the decision of the Madras High Court of Feb., 1895, aiul the sub-judge's decision conformed to it, printed in the " History of the Diocese of Mangalore", pp. 213-218).
In Native States.— In the Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 and 5:5 Vict. ch. O.i), the expression "India" is defined as meaning British India toyelher icith any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty, exerci.-<ed through the Governor General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the (Jovernor General of India. The territory of the Native States is not British territory; nor are their subjects British sub- jects. But the sovereignty over them, as Sir Courte- nany Ilbert in his "Govermnent of India" aptly ob.serves, "is diviile<l lietween the British Govern- ment and their rulers in proportions which tliller greatly according to the history an<l importance of the several States, and which are regulated partly by treaties or less formal engagements, partly by satiads or charters, and partly by usage". The British Gov- ernment has undertaken to protect these states from external aggression. But Government "as the para- mount power (a) e.xerci.scs exclusive control over the foreign relations of the State; (')) assumes a general but a limited responsibility for the internal peace of the State; (c) assumes a special responsibility for the safety and welfare of t he liritish subjects resident in the State ". The last is enjoyed by deleynlion from Indian principalities expressed by treaty or ba.sed on tacit and long usage. Such delegated juristliction is exercised also on British railways running through protected states, in civil stations, cantotunents, and residences within them. In these areas a large mimber of British-Indian enactments have been introduced by the Ciovernor General of India under the operation of Act XXI of 1.S79, the preamble of which runs as follows: — "Whereas by treaty, capitulation, agree- ment, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, the Governor General of India in Council has power and jurisdiction within divers places beyond the limits of British India." It is by virtue of this legis- lative provision, that the Divorce Act (IV of 181)9, as amended by Acts XI of 1889 and II of 1900), the Christian Alarriage .Vet (XV of 1872, as amended by Acts II of l.SiH and II of 1892), the Administrator General .\ct (II of 1S74, as amended by Acts IX of 1890 and \'I of 1900), Married Woman's Property Act (III of 1874), Births. Deaths and Marriages Registration Act (as amendeil by .Vet X\'I of 1S90) and Pilgrim Ships .\ct (XIV of 1895) have been made applicable to subjects of His Majesty within the dominions of Princes or States in India under the suzerainty of His Majesty.
The British (iovernment also exercises jurisdiction in some Native States over the sulijects or a class of the subjects, of such states, which is called residuary;
