As per case facts, the Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 88B(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. They contended that two conditions within its proviso—requiring ... a public religious trust to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, and its entire land income to be used for trust purposes to qualify for exemption from certain tenancy provisions—violated Article 26 of the Constitution. The Bombay High Court had previously rejected this argument, leading to these appeals. The question arose whether the introduction of conditions (i) and (ii) in the proviso to Section 88B(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, offended the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that these conditions do not detract from the granted exemption or violate Article 26. The Court reasoned that condition (i) ensures the genuineness of the trust for public religious worship through registration, providing verifiable proof. Similarly, condition (ii) legitimately mandates that all land income be appropriated for the trust's religious objectives, thereby confirming its authentic purpose and preventing its use as a mere facade for other activities. Both requirements are deemed reasonable for verifying the true nature of trusts seeking exemption.