The Supreme Court allowed a Civil Appeal of the Auroville Foundation against the Madras High Court’s Judgment which set aside a Notification containing a Standing Order.
The Supreme Court stated that the Doctrine of “Clean Hands and Non-Suppression of Material Facts” applies with full force to all judicial proceedings.
This observation was made in a Civil Appeal filed by the Auroville Foundation, contesting the Madras High Court’s judgment that annulled the Notification containing a Standing Order issued by the Foundation.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale elucidated, “It is no more res integra that the Doctrine of “Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to every proceedings before any judicial forum. The party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition.”
The Bench further stated that if it is brought to the Court’s attention that the Petitioner has suppressed material and relevant facts or has not approached with clean hands, such conduct should be treated seriously as an abuse of the legal process. In such cases, the Petition should be dismissed solely on this ground, without considering the merits of the case.
Facts of the Case
The Auroville project was legally established as an initiative of the charitable organization “The Sri Aurobindo Society” in Pondicherry, aimed at promoting Sri Aurobindo’s teachings. In 1991, the Government of India constituted the Auroville Foundation as a statutory body, which now operates under the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) as a Central Government undertaking.
However, instead of cooperating with the Foundation’s Governing Board in implementing the legally approved Master Plan and facilitating Auroville’s development as envisioned by the ‘Mother,’ certain discontented residents began obstructing progress. They repeatedly filed petitions in the High Court, leading to unnecessary litigation and dragging the Appellant-Foundation into legal disputes.
The Respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging the Office Order issued by the Appellant-Auroville Foundation. After its dismissal, she filed another Writ Petition without disclosing the previous filing or its dismissal.
In response, the Appellant, in its Counter Affidavit, raised specific preliminary objections regarding the Petition’s maintainability and the Respondent’s suppression of material facts. However, the High Court proceeded with the Writ Petition without addressing these concerns. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “Neither the said A.F. Act nor the said Rules contemplate or confer any right upon the Residents’ Assembly, much less upon an individual resident of Auroville to be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing Board for the efficient discharge of its duties and functions under the Act.”
The Court affirmed that there is no doubt that the Governing Board holds full authority and is empowered to exercise all functions on behalf of the Foundation. It further emphasized that the overall supervision, direction, and management of the Foundation’s affairs rest solely with the Governing Board.
“Though, it is true that Section 19(1)(c) required the Residents’ Assembly to assist the Governing Board to formulate the Master Plan of Auroville, however, the said stage was already over, when the Master Plan was prepared by the Governing Board in consultation with the Residents’ Assembly as contemplated in Section 17(e), and was then approved by the Central Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development way back in 2001”, it further said.
The Court held that the challenged Standing Order does not suffer from any legal defect. It further clarified that neither the Residents’ Assembly nor any individual resident has a legal or statutory right to be part of any committee or council formed by the Governing Board under its authority, as provided by Sections 11(3), 16(1), and 17(e) of the A.F. Act, along with Rules 5(1) and 5(2) of the A.F. Rules.
“The functions of the Residents’ Assembly are confined only to advise the Governing Board in respect of the activities relating to the residents of Auroville and to make recommendations as specified in Section 19 of the Act, and not any further”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the High Court had fundamentally erred in misinterpreting the provisions of the A.F. Act and in overturning the challenged Notification containing the Standing Order.
“The Writ Petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was one of such ill motivated petitions filed by her to abuse the process of law, to hamper the development of Auroville and to cause obstructions in the smooth functioning of the Governing Board of the Foundation”, it also remarked.
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Respondent.