Question

Ratilal v. State of Bombay is a popular case on the point of

• A. Res judicata
• B. Notice
• C. Restitution
• D. Doctrine of Cy-pres

Hint:

Associate landmark cases with their core area of law. \textit{Ratilal v. State of Bombay} is a key case for both Article 25/26 (Freedom of Religion) and the law of religious and charitable trusts, including the Doctrine of Cy-près.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks to identify the legal doctrine associated with the landmark Supreme Court case, \textit{Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay}. This case is a seminal judgment in Indian constitutional law, particularly concerning religious freedom.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The case of \textit{Ratilal v. State of Bombay} (1954) primarily dealt with the constitutionality of various provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioners, who were managers of a Jain public temple, challenged the Act as violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution (freedom of religion).
One of the key issues discussed in the judgment was the application of the Doctrine of Cy-près. This doctrine is applied in the law of trusts. It provides that if the original purpose of a charitable trust becomes impossible or impracticable to fulfill, the court can direct the trust property to be applied to a similar charitable purpose ("cy-près" means "as near as possible"). The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Bombay Act that allowed the Charity Commissioner to apply the cy-près doctrine and held that such a power must be exercised by a court of law and not by an executive officer.
The other options are unrelated to the central theme of this case.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The case of \textit{Ratilal v. State of Bombay} extensively discussed the principles of religious trusts and the application of the Doctrine of Cy-près in that context. Therefore, option (D) is the correct answer.