Bombay High Court overturns controversial naming restrictions, asks "what's in a name"

Bombay High Court. File Pic

"Naam mein kya rakha hai (what is in a name)," he Bombay High Court remarked in a significant ruling regarding the naming of charitable organisations, dismissing an order from the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner that prohibited certain terms associated with anti-corruption and human rights in their titles, reported news agency PTI.

The court's decision arose from a writ petition filed by the Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti Trust, which challenged the circular issued by the Charity Commissioner in July 2018.

IN PHOTOS: Lakhs of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar followers visit Dadar on Mahaparinirvan Diwas

2 weeks agoPHOTO GALLERY

The Charity Commissioner had mandated that trusts and charitable organisations refrain from using terms like "Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Mahasangh" (Anti-Corruption Federation), "Bhrashtachar Virodi Andolan", "Bhrashtachar Mukta Bharat" or "Human Rights" in their titles, arguing that the eradication of corruption is a governmental responsibility and not one for private entities.

The division bench, consisting of Justices M S Sonak and Jitendra Jain, countered this assertion, stating, "Naam mein kya rakha hai?" (What is in a name?) and emphasised that the focus should be on the organisation's work rather than its title.

Quashing the circular, the judges held that fighting against corruption or for upholding human rights falls in the definition of "object of general public utility" for which a charitable trust or organisation can be set up, stated PTI.

"We may end by saying "Naam me kya rakha hai, kaam dekhna chahiye. Agar kaam galat ho to sakht karvaai karni chahiye" (What is in a name, look at the work. If the work is wrong then take strict action)," the judgement said.

To claim that anti-corruption efforts cannot be the goal of a charitable organisation would contradict legal definitions.

The judges noted that has become "cancerous", undermining public welfare and impeding economic growth and government efficiency and "no such practice should be prevailing or be encouraged."

"Corruption and human rights are closely associated....Corruption is detrimental to all areas and aspects of human wellbeing, in particular human rights," it said.

To say that eradication of corruption cannot be the objective of a charitable organisation would be contrary to law, the HC added as stated by PTI.

Hence, an organisation/trust set up for fighting corruption would certainly be covered by the phrase "advancement of any other object of general public utility" as defined in the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, stated PTI.

While noting that authorities have the right to take action against any organisation that functions improperly, the court maintained that simply using certain phrases in a title does not justify a blanket restriction on naming conventions.

The court encouraged proper scrutiny of organisational actions rather than imposing limitations based solely on their names.

"Therefore, merely because such phrase is used in the title of the Trust would not mean that such an organisation is functioning as a kangaroo court, and if any such organisation is acting like a kangaroo court, then certainly the state rightly has to take action by curbing the activities of such kangaroo courts but not by forcing to change the name," the HC said.

(With inputs from PTI)