What is in a name, asks HC as it junks govt fiat on naming of social organisations

Mumbai: “Naam mein kya rakha hai (what is in a name),” the Bombay High Court remarked in a ruling on Friday as it quashed the Maharashtra Charity Commissioner’s order barring charitable organisations from using words such as `eradication of corruption’ in their names.

No trust or charitable organisation shall use terms such as `Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Mahasangh’, `Bhrashtachar Virodi Andolan’, `Bhrashtachar Mukta Bharat’ or `Human Rights’ in the title and name, said a circular issued by the Charity Commissioner in July 2018.

Trusts and other organisations with such names should drop these words from the title, it said. The charity commissioner justified the rule stating that eradication of corruption is the government’s job and not of any private body.

The judgement by a division bench of Justices M S Sonak and Jitendra Jain came on a writ petition filed by the Manvi Hakka Sanrakshan and Jagruti Trust which had challenged the rule.

Quashing the circular, the judges held that fighting against corruption or for upholding human rights falls in the definition of “object of general public utility” for which a charitable trust or organisation can be set up.

“We may end by saying “Naam me kya rakha hai, kaam dekhna chahiye. Agar kaam galat ho to sakht karvaai karni chahiye” (What is in a name, look at the work. If the work is wrong then take strict action),” the judgement said.

Authorities are free to take action against any organisation that actually acts like a kangaroo court, but the circular was contrary to the definition of `charitable purpose’ under the law, the judges said.

Names with words such as `anti-corruption’ or `human rights’ only give an indication that the organisation has been formed to take up the cause of human rights and eradication of corruption, the HC noted.

Corruption has become “cancerous”, affecting not only common people but also impairing the country’s economic growth and functioning of the bureaucracy, and “no such practice should be prevailing or be encouraged,” the judgement said.

Hence, an organisation/trust set up for fighting corruption would certainly be covered by the phrase `advancement of any other object of general public utility’ as defined in the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, it held.

To say that eradication of corruption cannot be the objective of a charitable organisation would be contrary to law, the HC added.

“Corruption and human rights are closely associated….Corruption is detrimental to all areas and aspects of human wellbeing, in particular human rights,” it said.

Effective protection of human rights includes mitigating systemic problems such as corruption, said the high court.

“Therefore, merely because such phrase is used in the title of the Trust would not mean that such an organisation is functioning as a kangaroo court, and if any such organisation is acting like a kangaroo court, then certainly the state rightly has to take action by curbing the activities of such kangaroo courts but not by forcing to change the name,” the HC said.