Holding

The suit does not fall within the ambit of Section 92 CPC; revocation of leave should be granted and the trustees cannot be removed on the basis alleged.

Summary

The respondents filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking removal of the trustees of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, alleging that the trustees failed to act against an objectionable biography of Sri Aurobindo. The High Court held the suit within the ambit of Section 92 and refused to revoke the leave to sue. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the suit was intended to vindicate a private right or to address public trust administration. It concluded that the purpose was to highlight the trustees' inaction regarding the book, which does not constitute maladministration of the trust. Consequently, the Court held that the suit does not fall within Section 92 and that the application for revocation of leave should be allowed, setting aside the High Court's order.

Issues considered

The suit filed under Section 92 CPC for removal of trustees is maintainable.
Whether the trustees' failure to ban an objectionable book amounts to breach of trust warranting removal.
Whether the purpose of the suit is to vindicate a private right or to protect public trust interests.
Whether revocation of leave granted to the respondents should be allowed.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 92
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 95
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 153-A, s. 295-A

Subjects

Section 92 CPCtrust administrationremoval of trusteespublic trustprivate rightobjectionable bookfreedom of speechrevocation of leavecharitable trust

Judgment

[2016] I S.C.R. 74

A SRI AUROBJNDO ASHRAM TRUST AND ORS.
v.
R. RAMANATHAN AND ORS.
(Civi!Appea!No. l2of2016)
JANUARY 5, 2016
B
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.92 - Suit under - By the
persons concerned with the appellant-trust (Aurobindo Ashram
Trust) - Praying for removal of the trustees of the appellant-Trust
as the trustees failed to support the tenets and philosophy of Shri
C Aurobindo - It was alleged that the trustees failed to take any positive
action to prohibit the availability of an objectionable book
(biography of Shri Aurobindo written by one of the inmates of the
Ashram, which contained distortions relating to life of Shri
Aurobindo) or dissociate themselves from it and instead assisted
D the author - Leave to sue was granted - Defendants' application
for revocation of leave was dismissed - In revision, High Court
interalia held that since the defendants did not take any action to
secure bar of the objectionable book nor take any action against
its author, the suit u/s. 92 is maintainable and the application to
revoke the leave was rightly rejected - On appeal, held: In deciding
E whether the suit falls within the ambit of s.92, the Court must consider
the purpose for which the suit was filed - In the present case, purpose
to file the suit was to highlight the failure of the Trustees to take
action against the availability of the book and against its author -
Failure to take steps to ban a book that is critical of the philosophical
F and spiritual guru of a Trust would not fall within the compass of
administration of the Trust - Such failure does not give rise to a
cause of action for removal of the trustees and for setting a scheme
for its administration - The suit does not fall within ambit of s.92 -
Application for revocation should have been allowed - Trusts and
Charities.
G
Administration of Justice - Advise of the Court to resort to amicable
dispute resolution mechanism, to settle the disputes.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is only the allegations made in the plaint that
H ought to be looked into in the first instance to determine whether
74
SRI AUROBlNDO ASHRAM TRUST v. R. RAMANATHAN 75

the suit filed lies within the ambit of Section 92 CPC. If the A
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. In deciding whether the suit falls within the ambit of
Section 92 of the CPC, the Court must consider the purpose for B
which the suit was filed. [para 31] [88-H; 89-A]
1.2 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. The issue whether
the book is objectionable or not, whether it deserves to be C
proscribed or not, whether it violates the provisions of Section
153-A or Sectiou 295-A IPC 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. [para 32] [89-B-C] D
1.3 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 E
Ashram. The appellants have also expressed displeasure with
the contents of the objectionable book. This being the position,
the appellants have done what could reasonably be expected of
them in relation to the objectionable book, pending a
determination by the Orissa High Court. [para 33] [89-D-E]
F
1.4 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 mild
reaction cannot be considered perverse or could not in any way
be held to be a breach of trust or an absence of effective G
administration of the Trust warranting the removal of the trustees.
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, H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.

A but certainly not an omission touching upon the administration of
the Trust. [para 34] [89-G-H; 90-A]
1.5 The failure of the appellants to take the initiative in
banning the objectionable book does not give rise to a cause of
action for the removal of the trustees of the Trust and settling a
B 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 conclusion of maladministration, unless the exercise of
discretion is perverse. The High Court ought to have allowed
C 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 the present case. [para 34] [90-B-
D]
Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati v. Ramji Tripathi 1975
D (1) SCR 790 = 1974 (2) SCC 695; Vidyodaya Trust v.
Mohan Prasad R & Ors. 2008 (3) SCR 569 = 2008 (4)
sec 115 - relied on.
2. It is time for all, litigants, lawyers and judges to introspect
and decide whether a litigation being pursued is really worth the
E while and alternatively whether an amicable dispute resolution
mechanism could be availed of, to settle the dispute to the
satisfaction of the litigants. This is not only in the interest of the
parties involved but also in the larger interest of the justice
delivery system. [para 4] [77-G-H; 78-A-B]
F Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust & Ors. v. S. Ramanathan
& Ors. MANUffN /0541/ 2013- referred to.
Case Law Reference
1975 (1) SCR 790 relied on para 25
G 2008 (3) SCR 569 relied on para 25
MANUffN /0541/ 2013 referred to para 23
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12 of
2016

H From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2013 of the High Court
SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST v. R. RAMANATHAN 77

of Judicature at Madras in Revision Petition No. C.R.P (PD) No. 4357 A
of2012.
Ashok N. Desai, Sriram Panchu, Sanjay Parikh, Anu Bindra, N.
Susan, Abraham Mathew, N. Sai Vinod, Anitha Shenoy for the Appellants.
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Manu Nair, Saanjh N. Purohit, Ishan Gaur,
S. S. Shroff, Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Sumit B
Kumar, Nitin Kala, Rajesh Srivastava for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The dispute that has arisen in this appeal is one that could have C
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 D
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
E
between the parties, but one of them refused to appreciate the meaning
of 'dissociation' while the other 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 F
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 oflegal
proceedings, funds which are to be used for charitable or religious
G
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

I Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R, (2008) 4 SCC 115 H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R.

A 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.
B 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 of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
C referred to as the 'CPC'). 3 It was prayed therein that appellants 2 to 6
who are the trustees in the SriAurobindoAshram Trust (appellant No. I
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
D 2 Subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.15/2011
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,
E 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;
F (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;
G
(j) 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 JOO( xxx xxx
H (3) xxx JOO( JOO< xxx
SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST v. R. RAMANATHAN 79
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

for the administration of the Trust. A
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 B
United States. For convenience, and for no other 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:-
c
"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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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
1. expel Peter Heehs.
ii. condemn and dissociate the Trust from the sacrilegious H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R.

A work
m. 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
B 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
c 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
D 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 romantic affairs with the Mother involving veiled
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST v. R. RAMANATHAN 81
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

spiritual enlightenment through Sri Aurobindo's philosophy had A
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 B
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 c
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. D

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.
f) Some of the rare materials published by Peter Heehs in his E
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 20"' September, 2008 and 2"'
October, 2008 but the appellants did not take any remedial action either
F
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 30"' 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 G
measures.
12. It was stated in the plaint that through a communication made
on 11"' November, 2008 the Trust expressed and admitted its displeasure
with the contents of the book written by Peter Heehs and claimer\ that
disciplinary action had been initiated against him. It was clarified that H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R.

A 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
B 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' for being a work punishable under
Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. 5
14. The forfeiture process was initiated by one of the devotees of
c 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
4 95. Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search warrants
for the same.- (1 ) Where-
( a) any newspaper, or book, or
D
(b) any llocu1nent,
wherever printed, appears to the State Government to contain any matter the 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 (45of1860), 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
E
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,-
F
(a) "newspaper" and "book" have the same meaning as in the Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of l 867);
(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.
G
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 dtizens of lndia,
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
H punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.
SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST v. R. RAMANATHAN 83
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

order on 4 1h November, 2008 requiring the petitioner therein to make a 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
B
objectionable book without obtaining a no objection from the Government
oflndia.
15. 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 c
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 (I) 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. H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.

A therefrom was forfeited to the Government.
16. The relevant extract of the Gazette Notification dated 9"'
April, 2009 reads as follows:
S.R.O.N0.127/2009 - Where as on a careful consideration of
materials placed on record, it appears to the State Government
B 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
c 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 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
D (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,
E 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;
F
(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";
G (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
H of a vulgar jostle anywhere in the moving procession," a visitor
SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST v. R. RAMANATHAN 85
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

noted. "The mystic sits bare-bodied except for a part of his dhoti A
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
B
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 c
(I) 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 ofSriAurobindo" written by Peter
Heehs and published by Columbia University Press New York,
U.S.A. its copies, reprints, translations or other documents D
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 E
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 Al Books made the
objectionable book permanently unavailable on their websites and through
sales channels in India. F
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 2"d July, 2010 and several other letters. The only replies G
received from the appellants were on 21" June, 2010 and 22"d 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. H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201611 S.C.R.

A 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 6ili October,
2012.
B 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
c 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
D 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.

E 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.O.) No. 4357 of2012 which came to be dismissed
by the impugned judgment and order dated 2"' April, 2013 by the Madras
High Court. 7
F
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
G archives of the Ashram.
25. 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 looked into in the first
7 Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust & Ors. v. S. Ramanathan & Ors, MANU(fN/0541/
H 2013
s (1974) 2 sec 695
SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST v. R. RAMANATHAN 87
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

instance to detennine whether the suit filed by the respondents falls A
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 law into consideration as well as the averments
B
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 c
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 th~ ambit of Section 92 of the CPC and

9 (2008) 4 sec 115 H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R.

A 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.
B 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.
28. On the above basis, the High Court rejected the revision petition
c 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
D 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.
E 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
F
is very much alive before the Orissa High Court and it is for that Court
to take a final ca11 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
G 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
detennine whether the suit filed lies within the ambit of Section 92 of the
H CPC. It was also held that if the allegations in the plaint indicate that the
SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST v. R. RAMANATHAN 89
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

suit has been filed to remedy the infringement of a private right or to A
vindicate a private right, then the suit would not fall within the ambit of
Section 92 oftheCPC. 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.
B
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 C
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 D
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 11 'h November, 2008. E
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 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 F
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 G
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 H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B
the appellants to take the initiative in banning the objectionable book
gives 1ise 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
c 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 ofleave granted to the respondents to initiate
proceedings under Section 92 of the CPC, in the facts of this case.
D 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
E 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.
F
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
G
bear their own costs and once again consider an amicable settlement of
their dispute.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.