Mumbai: Observing, “what’s in a name, it is the work that matters…”, the Bombay High Court on Friday quashed a July 2018 notification of the Maharashtra charity commissioner that directed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to remove words like ‘human rights’, ‘bhrashtachar virodhi andolan’, ‘eradication of corruption’, etc, from the names of trusts.
The HC division bench of Justices M S Sonak and Jitendra Jain held that the circular banning these words stands contrary to the definition of ‘charitable purpose‘ under the Act, hence set it aside.
However, the Dec 6 ruling said the charity commissioners are free to take any action the law permits if it is found that any trust or organisation registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, is acting like kangaroo courts or impersonating themselves by way of their activities as instrumentalities of the State.
“It is the work that has to be seen, and if that’s not good, action can be taken,” the HC said, quoting a Hindi saying. The rule was necessary, the state argued, since it was the state’s job and duty to tackle and eradicate corruption and not that of any NGO. A voluntary body, Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti Trust, challenged the circular as being invalid. The HC judgment authored by Justice Jain analysed the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. It noted the definition of ‘charitable purposes’ aims at “advancement of any other general public utility”, which has a wide amplitude. It means a public benefit for groups across sections as distinguished from individuals.
“In recent times, corruption has become cancerous, which affects not only common people who can’t use it as a means to get what they are legally and rightfully entitled to, but corruption also impairs the growth of the country’s economy and functioning of bureaucracy,” said the HC adding that hence it satisfied the test of ‘general public utility’. Any organisation fighting corruption would fall within the ambit of advancing general public utility, the HC held, and added the phrase ‘human rights’ must be widely construed to fit the definition of ‘charitable purpose’.
But the High Court agreed with the state that bodies formed for fighting corruption cannot take the law into their own hands, as there are enough state machineries to tackle corruption. The ruling, the High Court clarified, pertained only to the State Public Trusts Act and no other Acts.
