Bombay High Court quashes circular prohibiting trusts from using 'human rights', 'corruption' in their names

The Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner's circular asking the public trusts to remove terms like 'Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Mahasangh', 'Bhrashtachar Virodhi Andolan', 'Bhrashtachar Mukta Bharat', and 'Human Rights', from their titles [Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti and Anr v. Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra and Ors]..A Bench of Justice M S Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain chose to end their verdict with two lines in Hindi to emphasize that actions of an organization can be the subject of scrutiny but not its name."Naam me kya rakha hai, kaam dekhna chahiye. Agar kaam galat ho to sakht karvaai karni chahiye [What is there in the name? Work should be seen. If the work is wrong then strict action should be taken]," the Court said..The circular was issued by the Charity Commissioner in July 2018 on the ground that such names mislead the public into thinking that such organizations have the authority to fight corruption and protect human rights.The circular was challenged by Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti, a registered society based in Pune.It was argued that the directive was unconstitutional and lacked any legal basis under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.The counsel representing the organization also contended that the phrases used in their trust names did not imply governmental authority.Amicus Curiae Abhay Anturkar also supported the view, pointing out that the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act does not contain any provision prohibiting such names..In defense of the circular, the State including the Charity Commissioner told the Court that the circular was in public interest and aimed at preventing organizations from pretending to have any governmental authority..However, the Court analyzed the provisions of the Act and came to the conclusion that 'charitable purpose' among other things has also been defined as an activity for advancement of any other object of general public utility. It added that this phrase was of broad amplitude."The expression "object of general public utility" would include all objects which promote the welfare of the general public. It cannot be said that the purpose would cease to be charitable even if public welfare is intended to be served, thereby including taking steps to urge or oppose legislation. If the primary purpose is the advancement of objects of general public utility, it would remain charitable even if an incidental entry results into political domain for achieving that purpose," the Court explained.It thus opined that an organization set up for fighting corruption would certainly fall within the phrase 'advancement of any other object of general public utility'."Any other interpretation would be contrary to and in the teeth of the said provision and, therefore, the Circular to the extent that it states the eradication of corruption cannot be a social be a social objective of any organisation, is contrary to the definition of charitable purpose for which the organisation is registered under the said Act," the Court said..Similarly, the Court said the phrase 'human rights' has to be construed widely and if an organization is formed to take up the case of those whose rights are affected, then there exists no reason why such an organization cannot be treated as existing for charitable purpose..Further, the Court held that once the authorities issue certificate of registration under the Act, they do not have the power to direct the trustees to change the name of the trust. "If the name of the Trust gives an impression of it belonging to the Government or patronage by the Government then the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 can certainly be invoked by the authorities under the said Act of 1950," it added..However, the Court also agreed that an organization formed for fighting corruption cannot take law into its own hands since the enforcement and redressal of the grievance has to be in accordance with the law.There are enough machinery and enforcement agencies which are formed for examining the issue of corruption, it added..Nevertheless, it opined that use of phrases like 'corruption' or 'human rights' nowhere would give any impression that such organization or trust has the power to take action against the person who is facing corruption charges or who is violating human rights.Hence, it proceeded to quash the circular..Advocates Abhishek Subhash Haridas and Vikas Shravan Kuchekar appeared for the petitioners.Advocate Abhay Anturkar served as Amicus Curiae.Additional Government Pleader AI Patel along with advocate SL Babar appeared for State-Charity Commissioner..[Read Judgment]