Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCITON

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    12       OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25788 of 2013)

Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust and Ors.                                      …Appellants Versus

R. Ramanathan and Ors.                    ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The dispute that has arisen in this appeal is one that could have and ought to  

have been settled in the first instance in the Trial Court. Unfortunately, the feelings (if  

not  the  animosity)  between  the  parties  have  run  so  high  that  any  meaningful  

discussion between them to sort  out  the pending issues has been ruled out.  When  

feelings are strong (and get further hardened over time) and tempers are high, there is  

a loss of balance and equilibrium. It is unfortunate that this state of mind has persisted  

with both parties who are well educated and perhaps have a philosophical and spiritual  

bent of mind, being trustees and residents of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry  

and followers of Sri Aurobindo.

3. On our part, we attempted to amicably sort out the problem between the parties,  

but one of them refused to appreciate the meaning of ‘dissociation’ while the other  

1

Page 2

expressed  the  view  that  mere  dissociation  was  not  enough  and  there  must  be  

condemnation! At the end of the day, we felt that each party wanted to score a brownie  

point over the other, little realizing that while they would be left with some ephemeral  

brownie points, the brownies (and the cream) would be shared by somebody else. In  

another decision altogether, this Court had occasion to remark that public trusts for  

charitable and religious purpose are run for the benefit of the public. No individual  

should  take  benefit  from  them.  If  the  persons  in  management  of  the  trusts  are  

subjected  to  multiplicity  of  legal  proceedings,  funds  which  are  to  be  used  for  

charitable or religious purposes would be wasted on litigation.1 How true.

4. It is time for all of us, litigants, lawyers and judges to introspect and decide  

whether a litigation being pursued is really worth the while and alternatively whether  

an amicable dispute resolution mechanism could be availed of to settle the dispute to  

the  satisfaction  of  the  litigants.  Most  problems  have  a  positive  solution  and  a  

concerted effort must be made by all concerned to find that solution of least resistance  

to the problem. This is not only in the interest of the parties involved but also in the  

larger interest of the justice delivery system.      

The facts

5. The  respondents  are  residents  of  or  are  otherwise  concerned  with  the  Sri  

Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry. They filed a civil suit being O.S. No. 15/20102  

before the District Judge, Pondicherry under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code  

1  Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R, (2008) 4 SCC 115

2  Subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.15/2011

2

Page 3

of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’).3  It was prayed therein that  

appellants 2 to 6 who are the trustees in the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust (appellant  

No.  1  and hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the Trust’)  be removed and new trustees  be  

appointed since these appellants have failed the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo and the  

Mother.  A prayer was also made for settling a scheme for the administration of the  

Trust.

Plaint filed by the respondents

6. The averments made in the plaint principally pertain to a book titled “The Lives  

of Sri Aurobindo” written by one Peter Heehs and the fall out thereafter.  The book  

purports  to  be a  biography of  Sri  Aurobindo and was published in  May 2008 by  

Columbia University Press in the United States. For convenience, and for no other  

3   92.  Public  charities.—(1)  In  the  case  of  any  alleged  breach  of  any  express  or  

constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the  direction  of  the  Court  is  deemed  necessary  for  the  administration  of  any  such  trust,  the  Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained  the leave of the Court, may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil  Court  of  original  jurisdiction  or  in  any  other  Court  empowered  in  that  behalf  by  the  State  Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject- matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree—

(a) removing any trustee; (b) appointing a new trustee; (c) vesting any property in a trustee; (cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be  

a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person  entitled to the possession of such property;

(d) directing accounts and inquiries; (e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall  

be allocated to any particular object of the trust; (f) authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold,  

mortgaged or exchanged; (g) settling a scheme; or (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

(2)  xxx xxx xxx xxx

(3) xxx xxx xxx xxx

3

Page 4

reason, this book is hereafter referred to as the book or the objectionable book.   

7. The respondents summarized their grievances in paragraph 2 of the plaint and  

the relevant portion thereof reads as follows:-

“The plaintiffs who represent the interest of the community of followers, devotees  and  disciples  of  Sri  Aurobindo  (for  whose  benefit  the  Trust  was  created)  are  constrained  to  file  the  present  suit,  inter  alia  seeking  the  removal  of  the  present  Trustees when the Trustees acted in bad faith and in breach of their obligations as  trustees.  Instead of promoting Sri Aurobindo’s tenets and philosophy, the Trustees  have  and continue to  harbor,  defend and openly extend support  to  one  Mr.  Peter  Heehs who authored “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo”, a sacrilegious book which falsely  portrays Sri Aurobindo as a liar and a mentally imbalanced person, and ridiculing his  spiritual encounters and experiences as an outcome of Sri Aurobindo’s tantric sexual  indulgence and schizophrenic state  of mind.  The fact that such an offensive and  venomous book was authored by none other than one of the Ashram’s own members,  sent shock waves throughout the community of thousands of devotees and disciples’  of Sri Aurobindo.  Masses of devotees appealed to the Trustees to publicly condemn  the  content  of  the  book  and  to  clarify  that  the  book  was  not  an  official  publication/work supported by the Trust, and further to seek the expulsion of Peter  Heehs from the Ashram.  Instead of publicly dissociating itself from Peter Heehs and  his book, the Trustees in absolute breach of trust, have for over two years harbored  Peter Heehs within the Ashram itself and gone to the extent of standing as a financial  guarantor  for  Peter  Heehs’ conduct  for  his  visa  renewals.   Despite  mass  public  outcries to the Trustees to

i. expel Peter Heehs.

ii. condemn and dissociate the Trust from the sacrilegious work

iii. stop the circulation of the book so as to protect the future interest of the trust

The Trustees, in pursuit of some hidden agenda, chose to protect and render support  to  that  very  individual  who  has  maliciously  disparaged,  debased  and  brought  disrepute to Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy and the ashram community at large.  The  Trustees have repeatedly disobeyed and declined to carry out the directions of the  Settler of the Trust, failed to execute the trust in accordance with its object of Trust  and  have  thus  acted  in  gross  dereliction  of  their  duty  as  trustees.   The  repeated  conduct  and  failure  of  the  Trustees  has  proven  that  the  Trustees  are  unfit  and  incapable of administrating the trust in conformity with the ideals of Sri Aurobindo.  Thus it  is  in  the  interest  of  the trust  and its  beneficiaries  to  remove the existing  trustees  and  consequently  appoint  new  trustees  having  faith  in  Sri  Aurobindo’s  philosophy and ideals and who are capable of administering the trust and protecting  its interest in accordance with its objects.”

8. More specifically, it was stated that the book contains deliberate and baseless  

distortions relating to the life of Sri Aurobindo, inter alia, to the effect that he had  

4

Page 5

romantic affairs with the Mother involving veiled tantric sexual practices; that he was  

a frequent liar and lied about his spiritual experiences; that his spiritual experiences  

were based on sexual and schizophrenic stimuli and that he was the initiator of the  

Hindu-Muslim divide and was responsible for the partition of the country.

9. It was stated that Peter Heehs claimed to be one of the founders of the archives  

of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram whereas the sole founder was one Jayanthilal Parekh and  

that this impersonation was mala fide and malicious to lend credibility to his book.

10. In sum and substance, according to the respondents what was outrageous and  

intolerable, as far as they and other devotees and inmates of Sri Aurobindo Ashram are  

concerned, was:

“a)  That the author of the deeply offensive book against Sri Aurobindo was none  other than one of the ashramites; b) That an individual who had been allowed to reside, use and benefit from the  facilities and resources of the Ashram to pursue spiritual enlightenment through Sri  Aurobindo’s philosophy had instead flagrantly misused the Ashram’s name and its  resources to launch a disparaging attack on the soul and foundations of the Ashram,  its faith, tenets and beliefs;

c) That Peter Heehs, the author has intentionally tried to mislead the public to  believe that the sacrilegious work has been published in consultation/affiliation with  the Ashram by audaciously claiming that he is one of the “founders of the Ashram  Archives” in a clear attempt to give credibility to the source and foundation of a book.

d) That the book was made possible by extensively misusing the Ashram’s own  research  database and resources  to  which Peter  Heehs had privileged access,  and  which  has  been  gathered  and developed over  40  years  by  the  Ashram’s  inmates,  devotees and researchers, and includes rare materials of great historical value.  This  database which is intended to document the greatness of Sri  Aurobindo’s life and  work was misused by Peter Heehs to misrepresent Sri Aurobindo in bad light.

e) Work done by large teams of dedicated inmates of the Ashram over 40 years  was claimed by Peter Heehs to be his own personal research in the book.

5

Page 6

f) Some of the rare materials published by Peter Heehs in his book were without  proper permission of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust.”    

11. In view of the above, the respondents and others made several petitions to the  

appellants including on 20th September, 2008 and 2nd October, 2008 but the appellants  

did not  take any remedial  action either  in respect  of  the objectionable book or in  

respect of Peter Heehs. It was stated that one Pranab Bhattacharya, the Head of the  

Physical Education Department had expelled Peter Heehs from the Physical Education  

Department of the Ashram on 30th October, 2008.  The expulsion notice was displayed  

prominently on the notice board but in spite of such and other actions, the appellants  

failed to take any appropriate corrective measures.   

12. It  was  stated  in  the  plaint  that  through  a  communication  made  on  11 th  

November, 2008 the Trust expressed and admitted its displeasure with the contents of  

the  book  written  by  Peter  Heehs  and  claimed  that  disciplinary  action  had  been  

initiated against him.  It was clarified that Peter Heehs was not the founder of the  

archives of the Ashram but Jayanthilal Parekh was its founder.  However, this does not  

appear to have satisfied the respondents.

13. Quite independent of the actions taken within the Ashram, some devotees of Sri  

Aurobindo took other proactive measures to stop the circulation of the objectionable  

book. This eventually led the Government of Orissa to order forfeiture of the book  

under Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code4 for being a work punishable  under  

4   95. Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search  

warrants for the same.— (1) Where— (a) any newspaper, or book, or (b) any document,

wherever  printed,  appears  to  the  State  Government  to  contain  any  matter  the  

6

Page 7

Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code.5  

14. The forfeiture process was initiated by one of the devotees of Sri Aurobindo  

who filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court being W.P. No. 15939 of 2008 to  

prohibit the printing, publication and distribution of the objectionable book.  This led  

the Orissa High Court to pass an order on 4th November, 2008 requiring the petitioner  

therein  to  make  a  representation  to  the  Government  of  India  which  in  turn  was  

required  to  pass  an  order  on  the  representation.  The  petitioner  did  make  a  

representation  and  the  Government  of  India  passed  an  order  in  December,  2008  

directing the State Government of Delhi and the Union Government in Pondicherry to  

ensure that there should be no publication of the objectionable book without obtaining  

a no objection from the Government of India.

15. The Government of Orissa also independently examined the matter and on 9 th  

April,  2009  a  Gazette  Notification  was  issued  in  which  grounds  were  given  to  

publication of which is punishable under Section 124-A or Section 153-A or Section 153-B or  Section 292 or Section 293 or Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the State  Government may, by notification, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the  issue of the newspaper containing such matter, and every copy of such book or other document  to be forfeited to Government, and thereupon any police officer may seize the same wherever  found in India and any Magistrate may by warrant authorise any police officer not below the  rank of sub-inspector to enter upon and search for the same in any premises where any copy of  such issue or any such book or other document may be or may be reasonably suspected to be.

(2) In this section and in Section 96,— (a) “newspaper” and “book” have the same meaning as in the Press and  

Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867); (b) “document” includes any painting, drawing or photograph, or other visible  

representation.  (3) No order passed or action taken under this section shall be called in question in any  

Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Section 96.

5   295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of  

any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.—Whoever, with deliberate and  malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words,  either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or  attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with  imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or  with both.

7

Page 8

conclude that the objectionable book contained matters which were deliberately and  

maliciously intended to insult the religious beliefs of the devotees of Sri Aurobindo  

thereby  affecting  public  peace  and  tranquility  making  the  publication  of  the  

objectionable  book an offence punishable  under Sections 295-A and 153-A of  the  

Indian  Penal  Code.6 Therefore,  every  copy  of  the  objectionable  book,  its  copies,  

reprints,  translations  or  other  documents  containing  extracts  taken  therefrom  was  

forfeited to the Government.  

16. The relevant extract of the Gazette Notification dated 9th April, 2009 reads as  follows:   

S.R.O.NO.127/2009 – Where as on a careful consideration of materials placed on  record, it appears to the State Government that the book titled as ‘The Lives of Sri   Aurobindo” written by Peter Heehs and published by Columbia University  Press,  New York, U.S.A. contain objectionable matters depicting distorted facts about the  life  and character  of  Sri  Aurobindo.   And whereas  the  State  Government,  on the  following grounds, is of the opinion that the said book contains matters which are  deliberately and maliciously intended to insult religious beliefs of millions of Indians  who idolize Sri Aurobindo as a National Hero and incarnation of “Almighty” and  

6   153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion,  

race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to  maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—

(a)  by  words,  either  spoken  or  written,  or  by  signs  or  by  visible  representations  or  otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,  residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony  or feelings of enmity,  hatred or ill-will  between different religious,  racial,  language or  regional groups or castes or communities, or (b)   commits  any  act  which  is  prejudicial  to  the  maintenance  of  harmony  between  different religious,  racial,  language or regional  groups or  castes or communities,  and  which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or (c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the  participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or  knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use  criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained  to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such  activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious,  racial,  language or  regional  group or  caste  or  community  and such activity,  for  any  reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity   amongst  members  of  such  religious,  racial,  language  or  regional  group  or  caste  or  community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or  

with both. Offence committed in place of worship, etc.—(2) Whoever commits an offence  

specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the  performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment  which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.  

8

Page 9

which  promotes  communal  disaffection  affecting  public  peace  and  tranquility  the  publication of which is punishable under sections 295A and 153A of the Indian Penal  Code,1860  (45 of 1860), namely – (a) the  book  depicts  wrong  and  distorted  facts  on  the  life  and  character  of  Sri  Aurobindo, which is clearly blasphemous (b)  the book contains absurd, irrelevant and self-made stories, which do not have any  scriptural support and has caused widespread indignation amongst the devotees    (c)  the writings  portrayed  in  the  book  have  seriously  hurt  the  sentiments  of  the  apostles of Sri Aurobindo and the said book, with deliberate and malicious intention  has insulted the religious beliefs of millions; (d)  the said book,  inter alia,  narrates at page 245 that “but those familiar with the  literature  of  psychiatry  and  clinical  psychiatry  may  be  struck  by  the  similarity  between Aurobindo’s powers and experiences and the symptoms of schizophrenia”; (e)  it is mentioned at page 399 that “Early in the afternoon the Mother   rejoined him,  and they walked together to the small outer room where they sat together on a sofa,  the Mother on Sri Aurobindo’s  right.  Here they remained for the next few hours as  ashramites and visitors – more than three thousand by the end of the 1940s -  passed  before them one by one, “There is no suggestion of a vulgar jostle anywhere in the  moving procession,” a visitor noted.  “The mystic sits bare-bodied except for a part of  his  dhoti  thrown  around  his  shoulders,  A kindly  light  plays  in  his  eyes,”  Sri  Aurobindo looked directly  at  each  person for  a  moment “the moving   visitor  is  conscious  of  a  particular  contact  with  these  [eyes]  as  he  bends  down  to  do  his  obeisance.  They leave upon him a mysterious ‘feel’ that baffles description.  The  contact, almost physical, instills a faint sense of a fragrance into his heart and he has a  perception of a glow akin to that spreading in every fibre of his being.”  Most visitors   had similarly positive experiences. But some, particularly those from the West, were  distracted by the theatricality of the setting and the religiosity of the pageantry.” Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (l) of section 95 of  the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the State Government do hereby  declare that every copy of the book titled “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo”  written by  Peter  Heehs  and  published  by  Columbia  University  Press  New  York,  U.S.A.  its  copies, reprints, translations or other documents containing extracts taken therefrom  be forfeited to the Government.  

17. Notwithstanding the above coercive action taken by the Government of Orissa  

and the Government of India,  the appellants did not take any steps to expel Peter  

Heehs from the Ashram or to sever all ties of the Trust with him; no restatement was  

made by the Trust disassociating itself from the objectionable book and no steps were  

taken by the appellants to stop the publication of the book by contacting Columbia  

University  Press  in  the  United  States,  while  independent  organizations  such  as  

Google, Flipkart and A1 Books made the objectionable book permanently unavailable  

on their websites and through sales channels in India.

9

Page 10

18. On the contrary, the appellants stood financial guarantee for renewal of Peter  

Heehs’ visa to stay in India. Notwithstanding this, the devotees of Sri Aurobindo and  

the residents of the Ashram continued to persuade the appellants and addressed to  

them further letters dated 28th May, 2010 and 2nd July, 2010 and several other letters.  

The only replies received from the appellants were on 21st June, 2010 and 22nd July,  

2010 but no clear stand was taken therein to redress the grievances of the respondents.  

It was alleged in the plaint that these acts of omission and commission by appellants  

Nos. 2 to 6 was a clear indication that they were mismanaging the affairs of the Trust   

and needed to be removed.

19. Leave to sue was granted by the Trial Judge to the respondents and summons  

was then issued in the civil suit to the appellants who preferred I.A. No. 494 of 2011  

to revoke the leave granted.  This application was dismissed by the Trial Judge by an  

order dated 6th October, 2012.

Order of the Trial Court

20. The Trial Court was of the view that where leave is granted under Section 92 of  

the CPC without notice to the defendants in the suit, those defendants would have a  

right  to  apply  for  revocation  of  leave.   However,  since  leave  was  granted  to  the  

respondents in the present case after giving full opportunity to the appellants to put  

forth their case, the question of revocation would arise only after evidence is led in the  

matter and on final determination of the suit.

21. The Trial Court rejected the contention of the appellants that the documents  

referred to and relied upon by the respondents were fabricated on the ground that this  

10

Page 11

could be adjudicated only after oral and documentary evidence was led on both sides  

in a full-fledged trial.  It was also noted that several impleadment applications were  

filed in the suit for being heard in the matter.  Therefore if leave is revoked, those  

applicants would lose their right and the real truth would not come out.

22. Based on the above reasoning the Trial Judge rejected the application to revoke  

the leave granted to the respondents.

23. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred a civil revision petition being C.R.P.  

(P.D.) No. 4357 of 2012 which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and  

order dated 2nd April, 2013 by the Madras High Court.7

Decision of the High Court  

24. The High Court  took the view that  the main allegation in the plaint is  with  

regard to the objectionable book written by Peter Heehs who was allowed to reside in  

the Ashram and allowed access to the archives of the Ashram.   

25. The High Court  took into consideration the law laid down by this  Court  in  

Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati v. Ramji Tripathi8 to hold that only the allegations  

in the plaint should be looked into in the first instance to determine whether the suit  

filed by the respondents falls within the scope and ambit of Section 92 of the CPC.  

However, reliance was also placed on Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R & Ors.9 to  

hold that the Court should go beyond the relief prayed for and focus on the basis on  

which the suit was filed and whether it was for vindicating public rights.  Taking the  

7  Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust & Ors. v. S. Ramanathan & Ors, MANU/TN/0541/2013

8  (1974) 2 SCC 695

9  (2008) 4 SCC 115

11

Page 12

law into consideration as well as the averments made in the plaint, the High Court  

held as follows:

“According to me, for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this revision, there  is no necessity to go into the veracity of the contents of the book.  Admittedly, the  plaintiffs have not filed the copy of the book and it is their allegation that the book has  not been published in India and it will be available for access only through the Internet.  In my opinion, in the absence of producing the book before this court, it is not possible  to comment on the statements made in the book about Sri Aurobindo.  Even assuming  that  in  the  said  book,  derogatory  remarks  are  made against  Sri  Aurobindo and  his  relationship with the Mother, in my opinion, the revision petitioners cannot be held  responsible for the same as admittedly, the revision petitioners have not sponsored the  book nor published the book under the aegis of Aurobindo Ashram.  The only allegation  made against the revision petitioners is that they have not taken any steps to remove  such a person from the Ashram.  According to me, such inaction on the part of the  revision petitioners cannot be brought into the caption of breach of trust. Nevertheless,  having regard to the scope of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as per the  law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Vidyodaya Trust case, the court has  to go beyond the relief and focus on the basis for which the suit was filed to find out  whether a suit can be entertained under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

26. Thereafter, the High Court held that since the Ashram had nothing to do with  

the publication of the objectionable book by one of its inmates it could not be held that  

there is a breach of trust. However (and this is important) the High Court concluded  

that  since  the  appellants  had  not  taken  any  action  to  secure  the  ban  of  the  

objectionable book or to take any action against Peter Heehs,  the respondents had  

made out a case to bring the suit  within the ambit  of Section 92 of  the CPC and  

therefore the Trial Court was right in rejecting the application to revoke leave.  It was  

also held that under these circumstances, the respondents had no personal interest in  

the  matter  and  the  suit  was  not  filed  by  them to  vindicate  any  personal  interest.  

Consequently, they had the necessary locus to file a suit under Section 92 of the CPC.  

27. The High Court also held, reversing the Trial Court in this regard, that merely  

because leave had been granted after hearing the appellants, it would not be a ground  

to deny to them the right to file an application for revocation of leave.

12

Page 13

28. On the above basis, the High Court rejected the revision petition and it is under  

these circumstances that the rejection is under challenge before us.

Discussion and findings

29. The sum and substance of the grievance of the respondents is really two-fold:  

firstly, the appellants failed to take any positive action to prohibit the availability of  

the  objectionable  book  or  dissociate  themselves  from  the  objectionable  book;  

secondly,  instead  of  taking  some  coercive  action  against  Peter  Heehs  (such  as  

removing him from the Ashram) the appellants assisted him in getting a visa for his  

continued stay in India by standing guarantee for him.  

30. In our opinion, the second grievance would arise only if there is substance in the  

first grievance, namely, that the appellants failed to take proactive measures to have  

the objectionable book proscribed and that they failed to dissociate themselves from  

the contents of the book. This really begs the question whether the objectionable book  

ought at all to be proscribed or its sale prohibited. As we have seen above, the matter   

is very much alive before the Orissa High Court and it is for that Court to take a final   

call on the legality or otherwise of the action taken by the concerned authorities in the  

State in prohibiting the availability of the objectionable book. Until that decision is  

taken by the High Court, it would be premature to hold that the book is objectionable  

enough as not to be made available to readers.     

31. In Swami Paramatmanand Saraswati it was held by this Court (relying upon  

several earlier decisions) that it is only the allegations made in the plaint that ought to  

be looked into in the first instance to determine whether the suit filed lies within the  

13

Page 14

ambit of Section 92 of the CPC. It was also held that if the allegations in the plaint  

indicate that the suit has been filed to remedy the infringement of a private right or to   

vindicate a private right, then the suit would not fall within the ambit of Section 92 of  

the CPC. Finally, it was also held that in deciding whether the suit falls within the  

ambit of Section 92 of the CPC, the Court must consider the purpose for which the  

suit was filed. This view was reiterated in Vidyodaya Trust.

32. Considering the purpose of the suit filed by the respondents, it is quite clear that  

it was to highlight the failure of the appellants to take action against the availability of  

the objectionable  book and against  the author.  As we have noted above,  the issue  

whether the book is objectionable or not, whether it deserves to be proscribed or not,  

whether it violates the provisions of Section 153-A or Section 295-A of the Indian  

Penal  Code  has  yet  to  be  determined  by  the  Orissa  High  Court.  Until  that  

determination is made,  it  would be premature to expect the appellants to take any  

precipitate action in the matter against the author.  

33. The best that the appellants could have done under the circumstances was to  

make it clear whether they have anything to do with the objectionable book or not.  

The High Court has noted quite explicitly that the appellants have not sponsored the  

book nor was it published under the aegis of the Aurobindo Ashram. The appellants  

have  also,  it  may  be  recalled,  expressed  displeasure  with  the  contents  of  the  

objectionable book through the  communication of 11th November, 2008. This being  

the  position,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  appellants  have  done  what  could  

reasonably  be  expected  of  them in  relation  to  the  objectionable  book,  pending  a  

14

Page 15

determination by the Orissa High Court.  

34. The High Court has effectively faulted the appellants for not making the first  

strike to secure a ban on the objectionable book. This is really a question of the degree  

of reaction to the objectionable book on which we would not like to comment. The  

appellants  could  have  expressed  their  displeasure  over  the  contents  of  the  

objectionable book, or dissociated themselves from the objectionable book or even  

taken proactive steps to have the objectionable book banned or proscribed. That the  

appellants chose only to express their displeasure may be construed as a mild reaction  

(as compared to outright condemnation of the objectionable book), particularly since  

the appellants had nothing to do with its publication. But the question is whether the  

mild reaction is perverse or could in any way be held to be a breach of trust or an  

absence of effective administration of the Trust warranting the removal of the trustees.  

We  do  not  think  so.  Failure  to  take  steps  to  ban  a  book  that  is  critical  of  the  

philosophical  and  spiritual  guru  of  a  Trust  would  not  fall  within  the  compass  of  

administration  of  the  Trust.  It  might  be  an  omission  of  the  exercise  of  proper  

discretion on the part of the trustees, but certainly not an omission touching upon the  

administration of the Trust.  We are not in agreement with the High Court that the  

failure of the appellants to take the initiative in banning the objectionable book gives  

rise to a cause of action for the removal of the trustees of the Trust and settling a  

scheme for its administration. The trustees of a trust are entitled to a wide discretion in  

the  administration  of  a  trust.  A disagreement  with  the  exercise  of  the  discretion  

(however  passionate  the  disagreement  might  be)  does  not  necessarily  lead  to  a  

15

Page 16

conclusion of maladministration, unless the exercise of discretion is perverse.   In our  

opinion, the High Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the appellants  

for the revocation of leave granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings under  

Section 92 of the CPC, in the facts of this case.  

35. We were invited to express a view on the constitutional freedom of speech and  

expression  guaranteed  by  Article  19  (1)  (a)  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  not  at  all  

necessary for  us to do so.  The Orissa High Court might be called upon to do so,  

depending on the views of the contesting parties, one of whom we were told, is the  

author of the objectionable book. We express no opinion on the issue and leave the  

matter at that.     

36. This being our conclusion with regard to the first grievance of the respondents,  

their second grievance is rather premature. It would arise only if and when appropriate  

directions are issued by the Orissa High Court in the pending litigation.   

Conclusion

37. We find merit in the appeal and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment  

and order of  the High Court  and allow the application filed by the appellants  for  

revocation  of  leave.  The  parties  are  left  to  bear  their  own  costs  and  once  again  

consider an amicable settlement of their dispute.  

                  ……………………….J                           (Madan B. Lokur)

 ……………………….J

                        (S. A. Bobde) New Delhi;

16

Page 17

January  5, 2016

17