The Bombay High Court quashed the Revised Circular No. 543 dated July 4, 2018, issued by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra, which directed trusts with names containing phrases like “Bhrashtachar Nirmulan,” “Bhrashtachar Virodhi,” or “Human Rights” to change their names. The Court held that the Circular was inconsistent with the definition of “charitable purposes” under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and lacked statutory backing. The Court emphasized that names should not be forcefully changed unless there is impersonation or misuse of authority. The judgment reaffirmed the broad scope of charitable purposes and advocated legal action only against actual misuse, not mere use of phrases.

1. Background of the Case:

• Petitioner: Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti, a registered trust, challenged the Circular issued by the Charity Commissioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
• Impugned Circular: Directed trustees to remove phrases related to corruption eradication and human rights from trust names, citing potential misuse and false public impressions.

2. Submissions by the Parties:

• Petitioner’s Argument:
  The Circular lacked legal backing under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. Eradication of corruption and protection of human rights fell within the scope of "charitable purposes" as defined under Section 9 of the Act.

• Respondent’s Defense:
  The Circular aimed to prevent public misunderstanding and misuse of such names. The state argued that these phrases misled people into believing the trusts had statutory powers.

3. Key Legal Provisions and Case Law Discussed:

• Acts and Sections:

  • Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950

    • Section 9: Defines "charitable purposes," including public welfare and social utility.
    • Sections 37, 41B, and 22(1): Provide mechanisms for enforcement, inquiry, and change in trust administration but do not empower forced name changes.

  • Companies Act, 2013 (Section 4[3]): Prohibits registration of undesirable names (not applicable here).

  • Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: Defines human rights broadly to include rights to life, liberty, and dignity.

• Judicial Precedents:

  • CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce
  • State of Bombay vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
  • Abdul Rahman vs. Inspector of Police (Madras HC)

4. Court's Analysis:

• The Circular contradicted the broad definition of "charitable purposes" under Section 9, which includes activities for general public utility.
• The state has sufficient safeguards under existing laws to address misuse without requiring name changes.
• The absence of provisions like Section 3A of the Societies Registration Act or Section 4(3) of the Companies Act made the Circular legally untenable.

5. Decision and Ratio Decidendi:

• The Court held that the Circular was not legally sustainable. Charitable purposes can include eradicating corruption or protecting human rights, provided the trust does not impersonate the state or misuse its position.
• The authorities were advised to take action against misconduct based on actual activities, not merely the use of certain phrases.

Key Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950: Sections 9, 22(1), 37, 41B.
2. Companies Act, 2013: Section 4(3).
3. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: Section 2(d).
4. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Mentioned in the context of corruption.

Ratio Decidendi:

The names of trusts cannot be arbitrarily directed to change unless their activities involve impersonation or illegal actions. Charitable purposes under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act include the advancement of public welfare, and no restriction exists on using terms like "human rights" or "corruption eradication" unless supported by statutory provisions.

Subjects:

Charitable Trust Names, Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, Freedom of Expression. Trust Law, Charity Commissioner, Public Utility, Human Rights, Anti-Corruption.