BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.12.2023 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.(MD)No.12338 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 A.Rengasamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector General, Registration Department, 100, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai-600 028.

2.The Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar.

3.State Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 ...Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration,declaring the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 by the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration (Amendment) Act, 2010 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and consequently struck down the G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 30-03-2010.

For Petitioner : Mr.Henri Tiphagne for Mr.A.John Vincent For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Writ of declaration on hand had been instituted to declare the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) by the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration (Amendment) Act 2010 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and consequently struck down the G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 30-03-2010.

2.The petitioner is claiming to be the State General Secretary, National Human Rights Organization having registered office at 157/197, Thoppupatti Street, Rajapalayam, Virudhuangar District. The petitioner has narrated the good services made through his Organization for protecting the human rights.

3.The issue raised in this writ petition is, whether the impugned amendment is causing infringement to the fundamental right of the petitioner to use the term “Human Rights Organization” registered by him under the provisions of the Act. Broadly, the legislative actions in amending the provisions of the Act may be challenged either on the ground of legislative competency or in violation of Part III of the Constitution of India.

4.No doubt, beyond the above grounds, there are certain exceptional circumstances, when the Court may intervene in the interest of justice or by considering the constitutional perspectives. In the present case, no such occasion arose before us, in view of the fact that the petitioner had challenged the amendment on the ground that he is prevented from using the term “Human Rights” as a name to be used as prefix to his organization registered under the Act.

5.Let us now consider the legislative competence, which is made clear from List II of the State List, wherein Item No.32 stipulates Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, other than those specified in List I, and universities; unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; co-operative societies.” Therefore, the subject falls under the State List and the Act (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975) is the State Act. Therefore there is no ambiguity in respect of powers of the State to issue amendments to the provisions of the Act.

6.The next ground is whether the amendment is causing infringement of the fundamental rights of citizen under Pat III of the Constitution of India.

7.Article 19(1)(c) provides right to form associations or unions or cooperative societies. In the present case, the right to form an association and register such association under the provisions of the Act has not been taken away through the impugned amendment. That being so, there is no infringement and thus, this ground is to be held goes against the writ petitioner.

8.The legislative competence is undisputed and regarding the fundamental rights, the petitioner is at liberty to register the organization and provide services protecting the human rights of the citizens in general or to the people, where he resides.

9.Now the question ar