Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust vs. R Ramanathan, 2016

Subject:  Applicability of Sec. 92 of the CPC 

• 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. 15/2010 2 before the District Judge, Pondicherry under the provisions of Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’).  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. 
• 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
• The plaintiffs who represent the interest of the community of followers, devotees and disciples of Sri Aurobindo (for whose benefit the Trust was created) filed the 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.”
• 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.
•  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.
• 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 Code .
• 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.
• The Government of Orissa also independently examined the matter and on 9th April, 2009 a Gazette Notification was issued in which grounds were given to 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 IPC.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 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.
•  Based on the above reasoning the Trial Judge rejected the application to revoke the leave granted to the respondents.
• 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
• 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.
• The High Court took into consideration the law laid down by this Court in Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati v. Ramji Tripathi  to hold that only the allegations in the plaint should be lookeked 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. 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. 
• 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.
• On the above basis, the High Court rejected the revision petition and it is under these circumstances that the rejection is under challenge before the Hon’ble supreme Court.

Whether the present case brings within its ambit the provisions of Sec. 92 of CPC. 

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.

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.

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 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

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 administration of a trust. A disagreement with the exercise of the discretion (however passionate the disagreement might be) does not necessarily lead to a 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.

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. 

• 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.
• 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 purposes are run for the benefit of the public. No individual should 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.