HC strikes down circular mandating changes in titles of trusts

The Bombay high court quashed a circular issued by state Charity Commissioner which directed trusts using phrases like, “Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Mahasabha”, “Bhrashtachar Virodhi Andolan” or “Bhrashtachar Mukta Bharat”, to remove these from their names to avoid misleading public

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday quashed a circular issued by the state Charity Commissioner on July 4, 2018, which directed trusts using phrases like, “Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Mahasabha”, “Bhrashtachar Virodhi Andolan” or “Bhrashtachar Mukta Bharat”, to remove these from their names to avoid misleading public into believing that the organisation possessed authority from the state to address issues like human rights and corruption.

HC strikes down circular mandating changes in titles of trusts

The court referred to the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and stated that the directive was in contravention of the definition of “charitable purposes” as contemplated under the Act.

The petition, filed by Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti, a Pune-based trust, and its vice president Abhishek Subhash Haridas, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the circular, claiming its provisions to be inconsistent to the Act.

Advocate Abhay Anturkar, appearing as an amicus curiae, highlighted that there were no provisions under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act which prohibited registration of organisations with undesirable names.

Additional government pleader AI Patel defended the circular by stating that the idea behind its issuance was to provide superintendence and administration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and, therefore, cannot be held bad in law.

The court, comprising of justice MS Sonak and justice Jitendra Jain, while stating the contradictory nature of the circular in defining ‘charitable purposes’ under section 9 of the Act, highlighted that such a circular cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny.

Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, includes under ‘charitable purpose’ relief of poverty or distress; education; medical relief; provision for facilities for recreation or other leisure time occupation if the facilities are provided in the interest of social welfare and public benefit, and advancement of any other object of general public utility. However, it does not include a purpose which relates exclusively to religious teaching or worship.

The court underscored mechanisms adopted by the state to curb unauthorised actions by the trust. However, it clarified it is beyond the state’s scope to mandate changes in titles. “Mere use of the name ‘prevention of corruption’ or ‘protection of human rights’ would not mean that the trust can be said to have any patronage from the state”, the court added.

Moreover, it observed that the circular lacked any statutory basis and failed to cite relevant court ruling in its support. The court declared the issuance of the impugned circular unjustified, while adding, “If such organisation or trust is functioning as a kangaroo court, then the state certainly has to take action by curbing their activities; rather than forcing them to change their names.”

Addressing the issue of misinterpretation by the public, it clarified that such phrases do not make any difference as it certainly does not impersonate state authorities or instrumentalities.