strike to secure a ban on the objectionable book. This is really a question of the degree
of reaction to the objectionable book on which we would not like to comment. The
appellants could have expressed their displeasure over the contents of the
objectionable book, or dissociated themselves from the objectionable book or even
taken proactive steps to have the objectionable book banned or proscribed. That the
appellants chose only to express their displeasure may be construed as a mild reaction
(as compared to outright condemnation of the objectionable book), particularly since
the appellants had nothing to do with its publication. But the question is whether the
mild reaction is perverse or could in any way be held to be a breach of trust or an
absence of effective administration of the Trust warranting the removal of the trustees.
We do not think so. Failure to take steps to ban a book that is critical of the
philosophical and spiritual guru of a Trust would not fall within the compass of
administration of the Trust. It might be an omission of the exercise of proper
discretion on the part of the trustees, but certainly not an omission touching upon the
administration of the Trust. We are not in agreement with the High Court that the
failure of the appellants to take the initiative in banning the objectionable book gives
rise to a cause of action for the removal of the trustees of the Trust and settling a
scheme for its administration. The trustees of a trust are entitled to a wide discretion in
the administration of a trust. A disagreement with the exercise of the discretion
(however passionate the disagreement might be) does not necessarily lead to a
conclusion of maladministration, unless the exercise of discretion is perverse. In our
opinion, the High Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the appellants
for the revocation of leave granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings under
Section 92 of the CPC, in the facts of this case.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCITON
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25788 of 2013)
Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust and Ors. …Appellants
Versus
R. Ramanathan and Ors. ...Respondents
Citation:(2016) 6 SCC105
Madan B. Lokur, J.
2. The dispute that has arisen in this appeal is one that could have and ought to
have been settled in the first instance in the Trial Court. Unfortunately, the feelings (if
not the animosity) between the parties have run so high that any meaningful
discussion between them to sort out the pending issues has been ruled out. When
feelings are strong (and get further hardened over time) and tempers are high, there is
a loss of balance and equilibrium. It is unfortunate that this state of mind has persisted
with both parties who are well educated and perhaps have a philosophical and spiritual
bent of mind, being trustees and residents of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry
and followers of Sri Aurobindo.
3. On our part, we attempted to amicably sort out the problem between the parties,
but one of them refused to appreciate the meaning of ‘dissociation’ while the other
expressed the view that mere dissociation was not enough and there must be
condemnation! At the end of the day, we felt that each party wanted to score a brownie
point over the other, little realizing that while they would be left with some ephemeral
brownie points, the brownies (and the cream) would be shared by somebody else. In
another decision altogether, this Court had occasion to remark that public trusts for
charitable and religious purpose are run for the benefit of the public. No individual
should take benefit from them. If the persons in management of the trusts are
subjected to multiplicity of legal proceedings, funds which are to be used for
charitable or religious purposes would be wasted on litigation.1
How true.
4. It is time for all of us, litigants, lawyers and judges to introspect and decide
whether a litigation being pursued is really worth the while and alternatively whether
an amicable dispute resolution mechanism could be availed of to settle the dispute to
the satisfaction of the litigants. Most problems have a positive solution and a
concerted effort must be made by all concerned to find that solution of least resistance
to the problem. This is not only in the interest of the parties involved but also in the
larger interest of the justice delivery system.
The facts
5. The respondents are residents of or are otherwise concerned with the Sri
Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry. They filed a civil suit being O.S. No. 15/20102
before the District Judge, Pondicherry under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code
1
Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R, (2008) 4 SCC 115
2
Subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.15/2011
2Page 3
of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’).3
It was prayed therein that
appellants 2 to 6 who are the trustees in the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust (appellant
No. 1 and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trust’) be removed and new trustees be
appointed since these appellants have failed the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo and the
Mother. A prayer was also made for settling a scheme for the administration of the
Trust.
Plaint filed by the respondents
6. The averments made in the plaint principally pertain to a book titled “The Lives
of Sri Aurobindo” written by one Peter Heehs and the fall out thereafter. The book
purports to be a biography of Sri Aurobindo and was published in May 2008 by
Columbia University Press in the United States. For convenience, and for no other
3
92. Public charities.—(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or
constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the
direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the
Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained
the leave of the Court, may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil
Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State
Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subjectmatter
of the trust is situate to obtain a decree—
(a) removing any trustee;
(b) appointing a new trustee;
(c) vesting any property in a trustee;
(cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be
a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person
entitled to the possession of such property;
(d) directing accounts and inquiries;
(e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall
be allocated to any particular object of the trust;
(f) authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold,
mortgaged or exchanged;
(g) settling a scheme; or
(h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.
(2) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx xxx
3Page 4
reason, this book is hereafter referred to as the book or the objectionable book.
7. The respondents summarized their grievances in paragraph 2 of the plaint and
the relevant portion thereof reads as follows:-
“The plaintiffs who represent the interest of the community of followers, devotees
and disciples of Sri Aurobindo (for whose benefit the Trust was created) are
constrained to file the present suit, inter alia seeking the removal of the present
Trustees when the Trustees acted in bad faith and in breach of their obligations as
trustees. Instead of promoting Sri Aurobindo’s tenets and philosophy, the Trustees
have and continue to harbor, defend and openly extend support to one Mr. Peter
Heehs who authored “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo”, a sacrilegious book which falsely
portrays Sri Aurobindo as a liar and a mentally imbalanced person, and ridiculing his
spiritual encounters and experiences as an outcome of Sri Aurobindo’s tantric sexual
indulgence and schizophrenic state of mind. The fact that such an offensive and
venomous book was authored by none other than one of the Ashram’s own members,
sent shock waves throughout the community of thousands of devotees and disciples’
of Sri Aurobindo. Masses of devotees appealed to the Trustees to publicly condemn
the content of the book and to clarify that the book was not an official
publication/work supported by the Trust, and further to seek the expulsion of Peter
Heehs from the Ashram. Instead of publicly dissociating itself from Peter Heehs and
his book, the Trustees in absolute breach of trust, have for over two years harbored
Peter Heehs within the Ashram itself and gone to the extent of standing as a financial
guarantor for Peter Heehs’ conduct for his visa renewals. Despite mass public
outcries to the Trustees to
i. expel Peter Heehs.
ii. condemn and dissociate the Trust from the sacrilegious work
iii. stop the circulation of the book so as to protect the future interest of the trust
The Trustees, in pursuit of some hidden agenda, chose to protect and render support
to that very individual who has maliciously disparaged, debased and brought
disrepute to Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy and the ashram community at large. The
Trustees have repeatedly disobeyed and declined to carry out the directions of the
Settler of the Trust, failed to execute the trust in accordance with its object of Trust
and have thus acted in gross dereliction of their duty as trustees. The repeated
conduct and failure of the Trustees has proven that the Trustees are unfit and
incapable of administrating the trust in conformity with the ideals of Sri Aurobindo.
Thus it is in the interest of the trust and its beneficiaries to remove the existing
trustees and consequently appoint new trustees having faith in Sri Aurobindo’s
philosophy and ideals and who are capable of administering the trust and protecting
its interest in accordance with its objects.”
8. More specifically, it was stated that the book contains deliberate and baseless
distortions relating to the life of Sri Aurobindo, inter alia, to the effect that he had
4Page 5
romantic affairs with the Mother involving veiled tantric sexual practices; that he was
a frequent liar and lied about his spiritual experiences; that his spiritual experiences
were based on sexual and schizophrenic stimuli and that he was the initiator of the
Hindu-Muslim divide and was responsible for the partition of the country.
9. It was stated that Peter Heehs claimed to be one of the founders of the archives
of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram whereas the sole founder was one Jayanthilal Parekh and
that this impersonation was mala fide and malicious to lend credibility to his book.
10. In sum and substance, according to the respondents what was outrageous and
intolerable, as far as they and other devotees and inmates of Sri Aurobindo Ashram are
concerned, was:
“a) That the author of the deeply offensive book against Sri Aurobindo was none
other than one of the ashramites;
b) That an individual who had been allowed to reside, use and benefit from the
facilities and resources of the Ashram to pursue spiritual enlightenment through Sri
Aurobindo’s philosophy had instead flagrantly misused the Ashram’s name and its
resources to launch a disparaging attack on the soul and foundations of the Ashram,
its faith, tenets and beliefs;
c) That Peter Heehs, the author has intentionally tried to mislead the public to
believe that the sacrilegious work has been published in consultation/affiliation with
the Ashram by audaciously claiming that he is one of the “founders of the Ashram
Archives” in a clear attempt to give credibility to the source and foundation of a book.
d) That the book was made possible by extensively misusing the Ashram’s own
research database and resources to which Peter Heehs had privileged access, and
which has been gathered and developed over 40 years by the Ashram’s inmates,
devotees and researchers, and includes rare materials of great historical value. This
database which is intended to document the greatness of Sri Aurobindo’s life and
work was misused by Peter Heehs to misrepresent Sri Aurobindo in bad light.
e) Work done by large teams of dedicated inmates of the Ashram over 40 years
was claimed by Peter Heehs to be his own personal research in the book.
5Page 6
f) Some of the rare materials published by Peter Heehs in his book were without
proper permission of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust.”
11. In view of the above, the respondents and others made several petitions to the
appellants including on 20th September, 2008 and 2nd October, 2008 but the appellants
did not take any remedial action either in respect of the objectionable book or in
respect of Peter Heehs. It was stated that one Pranab Bhattacharya, the Head of the
Physical Education Department had expelled Peter Heehs from the Physical Education
Department of the Ashram on 30th October, 2008. The expulsion notice was displayed
prominently on the notice board but in spite of such and other actions, the appellants
failed to take any appropriate corrective measures.
12. It was stated in the plaint that through a communication made on 11th
November, 2008 the Trust expressed and admitted its displeasure with the contents of
the book written by Peter Heehs and claimed that disciplinary action had been
initiated against him. It was clarified that Peter Heehs was not the founder of the
archives of the Ashram but Jayanthilal Parekh was its founder. However, this does not
appear to have satisfied the respondents.
13. Quite independent of the actions taken within the Ashram, some devotees of Sri
Aurobindo took other proactive measures to stop the circulation of the objectionable
book. This eventually led the Government of Orissa to order forfeiture of the book
under Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code4
for being a work punishable under
4
95. Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search
warrants for the same.— (1) Where—
(a) any newspaper, or book, or
(b) any document,
wherever printed, appears to the State Government to contain any matter the
6Page 7
Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code.5
14. The forfeiture process was initiated by one of the devotees of Sri Aurobindo
who filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court being W.P. No. 15939 of 2008 to
prohibit the printing, publication and distribution of the objectionable book. This led
the Orissa High Court to pass an order on 4th November, 2008 requiring the petitioner
therein to make a representation to the Government of India which in turn was
required to pass an order on the representation. The petitioner did make a
representation and the Government of India passed an order in December, 2008
directing the State Government of Delhi and the Union Government in Pondicherry to
ensure that there should be no publication of the objectionable book without obtaining
a no objection from the Government of India.
15. The Government of Orissa also independently examined the matter and on 9th
April, 2009 a Gazette Notification was issued in which grounds were given to
publication of which is punishable under Section 124-A or Section 153-A or Section 153-B or
Section 292 or Section 293 or Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the State
Government may, by notification, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the
issue of the newspaper containing such matter, and every copy of such book or other document
to be forfeited to Government, and thereupon any police officer may seize the same wherever
found in India and any Magistrate may by warrant authorise any police officer not below the
rank of sub-inspector to enter upon and search for the same in any premises where any copy of
such issue or any such book or other document may be or may be reasonably suspected to be.
(2) In this section and in Section 96,—
(a) “newspaper” and “book” have the same meaning as in the Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867);
(b) “document” includes any painting, drawing or photograph, or other visible
representation.
(3) No order passed or action taken under this section shall be called in question in any
Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Section 96.
5
295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of
any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.—Whoever, with deliberate and
malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words,
either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or
attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both.
7Page 8
conclude that the objectionable book contained matters which were deliberately and
maliciously intended to insult the religious beliefs of the devotees of Sri Aurobindo
thereby affecting public peace and tranquility making the publication of the
objectionable book an offence punishable under Sections 295-A and 153-A of the
Indian Penal Code.6
Therefore, every copy of the objectionable book, its copies,
reprints, translations or other documents containing extracts taken therefrom was
forfeited to the Government.
16. The relevant extract of the Gazette Notification dated 9th April, 2009 reads as
follows:
S.R.O.NO.127/2009 – Where as on a careful consideration of materials placed on
record, it appears to the State Government that the book titled as ‘The Lives of Sri
Aurobindo” written by Peter Heehs and published by Columbia University Press,
New York, U.S.A. contain objectionable matters depicting distorted facts about the
life and character of Sri Aurobindo. And whereas the State Government, on the
following grounds, is of the opinion that the said book contains matters which are
deliberately and maliciously intended to insult religious beliefs of millions of Indians
who idolize Sri Aurobindo as a National Hero and incarnation of “Almighty” and
6
153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion,
race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or
otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony
or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between
different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and
which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or
(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the
participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or
knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use
criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained
to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such
activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious,
racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity, for any
reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity
amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or
community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both.
Offence committed in place of worship, etc.—(2) Whoever commits an offence
specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the
performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment
which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
8Page 9
which promotes communal disaffection affecting public peace and tranquility the
publication of which is punishable under sections 295A and 153A of the Indian Penal
Code,1860 (45 of 1860), namely –
(a) the book depicts wrong and distorted facts on the life and character of Sri
Aurobindo, which is clearly blasphemous
(b) the book contains absurd, irrelevant and self-made stories, which do not have any
scriptural support and has caused widespread indignation amongst the devotees
(c) the writings portrayed in the book have seriously hurt the sentiments of the
apostles of Sri Aurobindo and the said book, with deliberate and malicious intention
has insulted the religious beliefs of millions;
(d) the said book, inter alia, narrates at page 245 that “but those familiar with the
literature of psychiatry and clinical psychiatry may be struck by the similarity
between Aurobindo’s powers and experiences and the symptoms of schizophrenia”;
(e) it is mentioned at page 399 that “Early in the afternoon the Mother rejoined him,
and they walked together to the small outer room where they sat together on a sofa,
the Mother on Sri Aurobindo’s right. Here they remained for the next few hours as
ashramites and visitors – more than three thousand by the end of the 1940s - passed
before them one by one, “There is no suggestion of a vulgar jostle anywhere in the
moving procession,” a visitor noted. “The mystic sits bare-bodied except for a part of
his dhoti thrown around his shoulders, A kindly light plays in his eyes,” Sri
Aurobindo looked directly at each person for a moment “the moving visitor is
conscious of a particular contact with these [eyes] as he bends down to do his
obeisance. They leave upon him a mysterious ‘feel’ that baffles description. The
contact, almost physical, instills a faint sense of a fragrance into his heart and he has a
perception of a glow akin to that spreading in every fibre of his being.” Most visitors
had similarly positive experiences. But some, particularly those from the West, were
distracted by the theatricality of the setting and the religiosity of the pageantry.”
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (l) of section 95 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the State Government do hereby
declare that every copy of the book titled “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo” written by
Peter Heehs and published by Columbia University Press New York, U.S.A. its
copies, reprints, translations or other documents containing extracts taken therefrom
be forfeited to the Government.
17. Notwithstanding the above coercive action taken by the Government of Orissa
and the Government of India, the appellants did not take any steps to expel Peter
Heehs from the Ashram or to sever all ties of the Trust with him; no restatement was
made by the Trust disassociating itself from the objectionable book and no steps were
taken by the appellants to stop the publication of the book by contacting Columbia
University Press in the United States, while independent organizations such as
Google, Flipkart and A1 Books made the objectionable book permanently unavailable
on their websites and through sales channels in India.
9Page 10
18. On the contrary, the appellants stood financial guarantee for renewal of Peter
Heehs’ visa to stay in India. Notwithstanding this, the devotees of Sri Aurobindo and
the residents of the Ashram continued to persuade the appellants and addressed to
them further letters dated 28th May, 2010 and 2nd July, 2010 and several other letters.
The only replies received from the appellants were on 21st June, 2010 and 22nd July,
2010 but no clear stand was taken therein to redress the grievances of the respondents.
It was alleged in the plaint that these acts of omission and commission by appellants
Nos. 2 to 6 was a clear indication that they were mismanaging the affairs of the Trust
and needed to be removed.
19. Leave to sue was granted by the Trial Judge to the respondents and summons
was then issued in the civil suit to the appellants who preferred I.A. No. 494 of 2011
to revoke the leave granted. This application was dismissed by the Trial Judge by an
order dated 6th October, 2012.
Order of the Trial Court
20. The Trial Court was of the view that where leave is granted under Section 92 of
the CPC without notice to the defendants in the suit, those defendants would have a
right to apply for revocation of leave. However, since leave was granted to the
respondents in the present case after giving full opportunity to the appellants to put
forth their case, the question of revocation would arise only after evidence is led in the
matter and on final determination of the suit.
21. The Trial Court rejected the contention of the appellants that the documents
referred to and relied upon by the respondents were fabricated on the ground that this
10Page 11
could be adjudicated only after oral and documentary evidence was led on both sides
in a full-fledged trial. It was also noted that several impleadment applications were
filed in the suit for being heard in the matter. Therefore if leave is revoked, those
applicants would lose their right and the real truth would not come out.
22. Based on the above reasoning the Trial Judge rejected the application to revoke
the leave granted to the respondents.
23. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred a civil revision petition being C.R.P.
(P.D.) No. 4357 of 2012 which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and
order dated 2nd April, 2013 by the Madras High Court.7
Decision of the High Court
24. The High Court took the view that the main allegation in the plaint is with
regard to the objectionable book written by Peter Heehs who was allowed to reside in
the Ashram and allowed access to the archives of the Ashram.
25. The High Court took into consideration the law laid down by this Court in
Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati v. Ramji Tripathi8
to hold that only the allegations
in the plaint should be looked into in the first instance to determine whether the suit
filed by the respondents falls within the scope and ambit of Section 92 of the CPC.
However, reliance was also placed on Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R & Ors.
9
to
hold that the Court should go beyond the relief prayed for and focus on the basis on
which the suit was filed and whether it was for vindicating public rights. Taking the
7
Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust & Ors. v. S. Ramanathan & Ors, MANU/TN/0541/2013
8
(1974) 2 SCC 695
9
(2008) 4 SCC 115
11Page 12
law into consideration as well as the averments made in the plaint, the High Court
held as follows:
“According to me, for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this revision, there
is no necessity to go into the veracity of the contents of the book. Admittedly, the
plaintiffs have not filed the copy of the book and it is their allegation that the book has
not been published in India and it will be available for access only through the Internet.
In my opinion, in the absence of producing the book before this court, it is not possible
to comment on the statements made in the book about Sri Aurobindo. Even assuming
that in the said book, derogatory remarks are made against Sri Aurobindo and his
relationship with the Mother, in my opinion, the revision petitioners cannot be held
responsible for the same as admittedly, the revision petitioners have not sponsored the
book nor published the book under the aegis of Aurobindo Ashram. The only allegation
made against the revision petitioners is that they have not taken any steps to remove
such a person from the Ashram. According to me, such inaction on the part of the
revision petitioners cannot be brought into the caption of breach of trust. Nevertheless,
having regard to the scope of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as per the
law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Vidyodaya Trust case, the court has
to go beyond the relief and focus on the basis for which the suit was filed to find out
whether a suit can be entertained under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
26. Thereafter, the High Court held that since the Ashram had nothing to do with
the publication of the objectionable book by one of its inmates it could not be held that
there is a breach of trust. However (and this is important) the High Court concluded
that since the appellants had not taken any action to secure the ban of the
objectionable book or to take any action against Peter Heehs, the respondents had
made out a case to bring the suit within the ambit of Section 92 of the CPC and
therefore the Trial Court was right in rejecting the application to revoke leave. It was
also held that under these circumstances, the respondents had no personal interest in
the matter and the suit was not filed by them to vindicate any personal interest.
Consequently, they had the necessary locus to file a suit under Section 92 of the CPC.
27. The High Court also held, reversing the Trial Court in this regard, that merely
because leave had been granted after hearing the appellants, it would not be a ground
to deny to them the right to file an application for revocation of leave.
12Page 13
28. On the above basis, the High Court rejected the revision petition and it is under
these circumstances that the rejection is under challenge before us.
Discussion and findings
29. The sum and substance of the grievance of the respondents is really two-fold:
firstly, the appellants failed to take any positive action to prohibit the availability of
the objectionable book or dissociate themselves from the objectionable book;
secondly, instead of taking some coercive action against Peter Heehs (such as
removing him from the Ashram) the appellants assisted him in getting a visa for his
continued stay in India by standing guarantee for him.
30. In our opinion, the second grievance would arise only if there is substance in the
first grievance, namely, that the appellants failed to take proactive measures to have
the objectionable book proscribed and that they failed to dissociate themselves from
the contents of the book. This really begs the question whether the objectionable book
ought at all to be proscribed or its sale prohibited. As we have seen above, the matter
is very much alive before the Orissa High Court and it is for that Court to take a final
call on the legality or otherwise of the action taken by the concerned authorities in the
State in prohibiting the availability of the objectionable book. Until that decision is
taken by the High Court, it would be premature to hold that the book is objectionable
enough as not to be made available to readers.
31. In Swami Paramatmanand Saraswati it was held by this Court (relying upon
several earlier decisions) that it is only the allegations made in the plaint that ought to
be looked into in the first instance to determine whether the suit filed lies within the
13Page 14
ambit of Section 92 of the CPC. It was also held that if the allegations in the plaint
indicate that the suit has been filed to remedy the infringement of a private right or to
vindicate a private right, then the suit would not fall within the ambit of Section 92 of
the CPC. Finally, it was also held that in deciding whether the suit falls within the
ambit of Section 92 of the CPC, the Court must consider the purpose for which the
suit was filed. This view was reiterated in Vidyodaya Trust.
32. Considering the purpose of the suit filed by the respondents, it is quite clear that
it was to highlight the failure of the appellants to take action against the availability of
the objectionable book and against the author. As we have noted above, the issue
whether the book is objectionable or not, whether it deserves to be proscribed or not,
whether it violates the provisions of Section 153-A or Section 295-A of the Indian
Penal Code has yet to be determined by the Orissa High Court. Until that
determination is made, it would be premature to expect the appellants to take any
precipitate action in the matter against the author.
33. The best that the appellants could have done under the circumstances was to
make it clear whether they have anything to do with the objectionable book or not.
The High Court has noted quite explicitly that the appellants have not sponsored the
book nor was it published under the aegis of the Aurobindo Ashram. The appellants
have also, it may be recalled, expressed displeasure with the contents of the
objectionable book through the communication of 11th November, 2008. This being
the position, we are of the opinion that the appellants have done what could
reasonably be expected of them in relation to the objectionable book, pending a
14Page 15
determination by the Orissa High Court.
34. The High Court has effectively faulted the appellants for not making the first
strike to secure a ban on the objectionable book. This is really a question of the degree
of reaction to the objectionable book on which we would not like to comment. The
appellants could have expressed their displeasure over the contents of the
objectionable book, or dissociated themselves from the objectionable book or even
taken proactive steps to have the objectionable book banned or proscribed. That the
appellants chose only to express their displeasure may be construed as a mild reaction
(as compared to outright condemnation of the objectionable book), particularly since
the appellants had nothing to do with its publication. But the question is whether the
mild reaction is perverse or could in any way be held to be a breach of trust or an
absence of effective administration of the Trust warranting the removal of the trustees.
We do not think so. Failure to take steps to ban a book that is critical of the
philosophical and spiritual guru of a Trust would not fall within the compass of
administration of the Trust. It might be an omission of the exercise of proper
discretion on the part of the trustees, but certainly not an omission touching upon the
administration of the Trust. We are not in agreement with the High Court that the
failure of the appellants to take the initiative in banning the objectionable book gives
rise to a cause of action for the removal of the trustees of the Trust and settling a
scheme for its administration. The trustees of a trust are entitled to a wide discretion in
the administration of a trust. A disagreement with the exercise of the discretion
(however passionate the disagreement might be) does not necessarily lead to a
conclusion of maladministration, unless the exercise of discretion is perverse. In our
opinion, the High Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the appellants
for the revocation of leave granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings under
Section 92 of the CPC, in the facts of this case.
35. We were invited to express a view on the constitutional freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. It is not at all
necessary for us to do so. The Orissa High Court might be called upon to do so,
depending on the views of the contesting parties, one of whom we were told, is the
author of the objectionable book. We express no opinion on the issue and leave the
matter at that.
36. This being our conclusion with regard to the first grievance of the respondents,
their second grievance is rather premature. It would arise only if and when appropriate
directions are issued by the Orissa High Court in the pending litigation.
Conclusion
37. We find merit in the appeal and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment
and order of the High Court and allow the application filed by the appellants for
revocation of leave. The parties are left to bear their own costs and once again
consider an amicable settlement of their dispute.
……………………….J
(Madan B. Lokur)
……………………….J
(S. A. Bobde)
New Delhi;
16Page 17
January 5, 2016
17
No comments:
Post a Comment