The court ruled that the circular restricting trust names related to human rights and corruption violates the definition of charitable purposes under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, recognizing these as valid social objectives.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

Challenge:-

3. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Trust has challenged the Revised Circular No.543 dated 04 July 2018 issued by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. The said Circular directs notices to be issued to the Trustees of the Trust which use the phrases “Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Mahasangh”, “Bhrashtachar Virodhi Andolan”, “Bhrashtachar Mukta Bharat” or “Human rights” in the title of the Trust name and further directs them to remove the same.

4. This Court on 10 October 2024 requested Advocate Mr. Abhay Anturkar to appear as an amicus curiae to assist the Court. Although he is an outstation counsel, Mr. Abhay Anturkar readily and graciously accepted the request. The Court appreciates the assistance given by the learned Advocate, who, with his arguments, research, and written submissions, which will be discussed in the course of our judgment, assisted the Court in deciding the issue raised for our consideration.

Submissions of the Amicus Curiae:-

5. The learned amicus curiae submitted that the reasoning given for issuing the impugned Circular runs contrary to the definition of “Charitable Purposes” as defined by Section 9 read with Section 2(13) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. He further submitted that under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act there is no provision akin to Section 4(3) of the Companies Act 2013 or Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which provides for prohibition of registration with undesirable names or those showing patronage of the Government. He further submits that the said Circular does not refer to the Section of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act or the source of power under which it has been issued. Learned Amicus Curiae relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce , 1964 SCC OnLine SC 109, Laxman Balwant Bhopatkar (since deceased) by Another Vs. The Charity Commissioner, Bombay, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 290 and State of Bombay and Others Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others , 1960 SCC Online SC 44 in support of his submissions. Learned Amicus Curiae, therefore, submitted that the impugned Circular is bad in law.

Submissions of the State-Respondent:-

6. Mr. Patel, learned Additional Government Pleader supported the issuance of the Circular and submitted that by using the phrases enumerated in the Circular, the general public gets an impression that the Organisation / Trust has powers to deal with the issues of corruption and human rights, and thereby results into a false impression being created in the minds of the general public. It was with these objectives and the representation received that the impugned Circular was issued in the public's interest. He further submitted that the State has been taking action against the Trusts, which impersonates as if they have the powers of the State to deal with corruption and human rights. Mr. Patel further submitted that this Circular has been issued for superintendence and administration of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and, therefore, the Circular cannot be held to be bad in law.

Analysis & Conclusions:-

8. Before we delve into the issue raised for our consideration, it would be apt to reproduce the English translation of the impugned Circular No.543 dated 4 July 2018, which reads as under:-

(Translation of a photocopy of a Revised Circular No.543 dated

04.07.2018,