Aurobindo ashram trustees get relief

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside an order of the Madras high court upholding the permission granted by a trial court to some devotees to file a suit for removal of the trustees of Puducherry Aurobindo Ashram for not banning an objectionable book written by an inmate.

A bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and S.A. Bobde said failure in banning a book that is critical of the philosophical and spiritual guru of a trust would not fall within the compass of the trust’s administration. It might be an omission of the exercise of proper discretion on the part of the trustees, but certainly not an omission touching upon trust’s administration.

The bench said “We are not in agreement with the HC that the failure of the appellants (Aurobindo Ashram and others) to take the initiative in banning an objectionable book gives rise to a cause of action for the removal of the trustees and settling a scheme for its administration. The trustees are entitled to a wide discretion in its administration.”

Writing the judgment and allowing the ashram’s appeal Justice Lokur said 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 HC 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 Civil Procedure Code, in the facts of this case.

The grievance of the devotees Ramanahan and others was that 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.

The Bench pointed out that whether the book is objectionable or not has to be decided by the Orissa High Court where the matter is pending. Until that determination is made, it would be premature to expect the appellants to take any precipitate action in the matter against the author.

The bench regretted that efforts for an amicable settlement of the matter failed. It said “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.”

It said 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. 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.