The HC ruled that the condition of 'blood relationship' among members of the society is bad-in-law and unconstitutional. Hence, it can't be a ground for cancellation of registration of society

CL : The HC ruled that the condition of 'blood relationship' among members of the society is bad-in-law and unconstitutional. Hence, it can't be a ground for cancellation of registration of society

Facts

• In the year 2000, the petitioner along with other like minded persons, who are followers of "Baba Goga Medi" formed an association and gave it the name "Delhi Dharmik Sewa Sangh Goga Medi Rajasthan", having its office at 16/33, East Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. After the formation of the said association, steps were taken for getting the same registered under the Societies Registration Act.

• The President of the society gave affidavits in terms of the guidelines framed by the respondent, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, at the time of formation of the society.

• The format of the affidavit required to be submitted by the promoter members inter-alia contained the following clause "That the desirous persons of the Society are not related to each other by way of blood relation or otherwise".

• Two of the promoter members, namely, Sh. Chandra Bhan Gupta and Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta, the Petitioner herein, are father and son respectively. The society was duly registered by the Registrar of Societies, ('Respondent no.1').

• Respondents No.2 to 6 made a complaint to the Registrar, complaining that false affidavits had been sworn by the President of the Society to the effect that the desirous members are not related to each other. Acting on the said complaint dated 20.05.2010, the Registrar issued a notice dated 02.06.2010 calling upon the society to show cause as to why their registration should not be cancelled. The Registrar proceeded to cancel the registration of the Society on the ground that a false affidavit had been filed to the effect that the desirous persons of the Society are not related to each other by blood relation, whereas two members, viz. Sh. Chandra Bhan Gupta and Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta – the Petitioner , were related to each other by blood, being father and son.

• The Registrar invoked Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to cancel the registration of the society. Consequently, the present petition has been preferred.

Held

• Section 1 of the Societies Registration Act,1860 provides that any seven or more persons associated with any literary, scientific or charitable purpose, or for any such purpose as is described in Section 20 of the Act, may, by subscribing their names to a Memorandum of Association and filing the same with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, form themselves into a society under the Act.

• Therefore, the right to form a society is available to any seven or more persons, and there is no embargo under the Act that such persons cannot be related to each other by blood or otherwise. Persons who may be related by blood can get together to form a society of the kind described in section 20 of the Act.

• Section 20 of the Act specifies the kind of societies which could be registered under the Act. These are charitable societies, the military orphan funds or societies established at the several presidencies of India, societies established for the promotion of science, literature, or the fine arts, for instruction, the diffusion of useful knowledge, the diffusion of political education, the foundation or maintenance of libraries or reading-rooms for general use among the members or open to the public, or public museums and galleries of paintings and other works of art, collections of natural history, mechanical and philosophical inventions, instruments, or designs.

• From the above, it is clearly seen that charitable societies are only one class of societies which could be registered under the Act. There could be other kinds of societies which could be registered under the Act, such as societies established for the promotion of science, literature or fine arts, or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, the diffusion of political education, the function or maintenance of libraries or reading rooms etc. These societies may, or may not be of charitable character.

• The prescription incorporated in the "Affidavit No.1", which forms a part of the guidelines framed by the GNCTD to the effect that "the desirous persons of the society are not related to each other by way of blood relation or otherwise", has no statutory or rational basis. The guidelines themselves have no statutory force, as it has not been shown that these guidelines have been framed by reference to any power vested in the GNCTD by virtue of the Act.

• There is no nexus between the offending prescription and the avowed object sought to be achieved – i.e. of allowing registration of charitable societies under the Act.

• The said prescription not only offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it is unreasonable, but also offends the freedom of every citizen of India to form an association or union under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The said freedom can only be curtailed by a law made by the State, by imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality (see Article 19(4) of the Constitution of India).

• As aforesaid, the guidelines are not law made by the State. It is not even claimed in the "Foreword" to the said guidelines that they have been framed by reference to Article 19(4) of the Constitution of India, or that the restriction imposed, as aforesaid, is in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality.

• This being the position, the requirement of the respondent authorities, requiring the President/Secretary of the Society to make a declaration that they are not related to each other by way of blood relation or otherwise, itself cannot be sustained. Since the said requirement itself was bad in law, the infraction of the said requirement by the President/Secretary of the society cannot lead to the consequence of the society losing its existence, even after its registration under the Act.

• Consequence of furnishing a false affidavit to a public authority is a separate matter, and if any consequences are to flow from the furnishing of the said false affidavit by the concerned individual, the same is entirely a different matter. Court has not gone into the issue of illegality, if any, committed by the deponent of the affidavit, namely, the President of the society in the present case. The said issue may be raised and decided on its own merits, in appropriate proceedings, if and when raised. - [2012] 22 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi)