A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India addressed the intricate issues of society governance, rights of disqualified members, and the application of the Doctrine of Necessity in the case of Adv Babasaheb Wasade & Ors. v. Manohar Gangadhar Muddeshwar & Ors.. The central questions pertained to whether a Working President could convene a meeting in the absence of office bearers, and the implications of notice issuance to members disqualified due to arrears. The court upheld the legality of actions taken by the Working President and clarified that disqualified members are not entitled to vote or receive notice. Furthermore, the Doctrine of Necessity justified convening the meeting, ensuring continued governance. The ruling reinforces procedural obligations while respecting the autonomous functioning of registered societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

Keywords: Doctrine of Necessity, Working President, Disqualified Members, Societies Registration Act, Membership Rights.

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgement Cause Title: Adv Babasaheb Wasade & Ors. v. Manohar Gangadhar Muddeshwar & Ors.
• Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10846 of 2018
• Judgement Date: 23 January 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.
• Author: Vikram Nath, J.
• Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1062 : 2024 INSC 52
• Legal Provisions Involved: Societies Registration Act, 1860, Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
• Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
• Case Related to Law Subjects: Civil Law, Societies Registration, Membership Governance.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute centers on the governance of the Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, a registered society in Maharashtra, following the deaths of essential office bearers. In the absence of a President, Vice-President, or Secretary, the society’s Working President convened a meeting to elect new officials. Seven objectors, who were in arrears and thus disqualified under Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, challenged the legitimacy of this meeting, contending they were denied due notice and voting rights. The High Court upheld the objections, invalidating the meeting, which led to an appeal in the Supreme Court. Key issues included the authority of the Working President to act in such capacity and the rights of defaulting members to participate in society governance.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Office Bearers’ Deaths: The society’s primary office bearers, including the President, Vice-President, and Secretary, passed away without successors.

2. Working President’s Role: In 1997, a resolution was passed designating Advocate Babasaheb Wasade as the Working President to manage day-to-day affairs due to the President’s ill health.

3. Meeting Convened for Election: On 20 August 2002, sixteen members requested the Working President to convene a meeting to elect a new executive committee. Consequently, a meeting was scheduled for 8 September 2002.

4. Objections by Defaulting Members: Seven members, in arrears of their membership fee, contested the convening of the meeting, arguing they were not notified. These objectors cited the society’s by-laws, arguing the Working President lacked authority to call such a meeting.

5. Legal Challenge and Proceedings: The Assistant Charity Commissioner initially upheld the objections, rejecting the Change Report filed after the meeting. Successive appeals led the appellants to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the Working President could convene the election meeting. ii. Whether members disqualified under Section 15 of the Registration Act were entitled to meeting notice. iii. Whether failure to notify disqualified members invalidated the meeting. iv. Validity of member signatures on the requisition. v. Private respondents’ locus to challenge the Joint Charity Commissioner’s decision.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Authority of the Working President: Counsel argued the Working President was empowered by a 1997 resolution to manage affairs in the absence of other office bearers, thus legally justifying his call for a meeting.

2. Doctrine of Necessity: Appellants invoked this doctrine, emphasizing that the meeting was necessary to prevent administrative stagnation. The Working President’s actions ensured governance continuity.

3. Disqualification of Objectors: The seven objectors, being in arrears, were ineligible to vote per Section 15. Thus, they had no standing to contest the election or receive meeting notices.

4. Invalid Membership Objections: The appellants refuted the objectors’ claims, asserting that all members signing the requisition were valid, as evidenced by their continued subscription payments.

5. Respondent’s Lack of Standing: The appellants contended that, as the private respondents were neither trustees nor eligible members, they had no locus to appeal the Charity Commissioner’s decision.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Authority to Convene Meeting: Respondents argued that the Working President had no statutory authority to convene the meeting, which, under the society’s by-laws, was a role limited to the President or Secretary.

2. Entitlement to Notice: The respondents maintained that, despite arrears, the objectors were still formal members, entitled to notice.

3. Validity of Members’ Requisitions: Respondents questioned the membership status of several signatories on the requisition, arguing some were retired employees and hence ineligible.

4. Application of Doctrine of Necessity: The respondents disputed the doctrine’s applicability, contending the circumstances did not justify extraordinary measures.

5. Locus Standi of the Private Respondents: Respondents argued for their right to challenge the Change Report, asserting that they had an interest in society governance.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Working President’s Authority: The Supreme Court upheld that the Working President, under exceptional circumstances, held the authority to convene a meeting. The absence of key office bearers justified the action under the Doctrine of Necessity.

2. Rights of Defaulting Members: The court ruled that members in arrears beyond three months, as per Section 15 of the Registration Act, forfeited their voting rights and right to notice. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the provision, aimed at maintaining active membership participation.

3. Doctrine of Necessity: The doctrine was appropriately applied as it ensured essential governance continuity. Without the Working President’s intervention, the society’s operations would have faced indefinite stagnation.

b. Obiter Dicta

The court observed that while the society’s by-laws did not explicitly provide for the cessation of membership upon default, the legislative intent of Section 15 warranted the treatment of defaulting members as suspended. The judgment also cautioned societies to clarify the status of retired employee members to prevent procedural ambiguities.

c. Guidelines

1. Doctrine of Necessity in Governance: Societies may invoke this doctrine under compelling conditions to fulfill essential governance roles, ensuring operational continuity.

2. Notice Requirements for Disqualified Members: Members disqualified by law due to fee arrears are not entitled to vote or receive meeting notices. Societies should enforce Section 15 and clarify defaulting members’ status.

3. Clarification on Membership Status: Societies should maintain updated records, especially regarding members in special categories like Employee Members, to ensure clarity in eligibility and voting rights.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The court’s decision reinforces the Doctrine of Necessity as a valuable tool for managing governance issues in societies. It emphasizes strict adherence to Societies Registration Act provisions, particularly regarding membership dues and disqualification. The ruling safeguards societies from potential administrative gridlock, providing clarity on procedural autonomy in cases of extraordinary circumstances.

J) REFERENCES

1. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 597.
2. Election Commission of India v. Dr Subramaniam Swamy, (1996) 4 SCC 104.
3. Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society v. Registrar of Societies, [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 161.
4. Societies Registration Act, 1860.
5. Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.