Supreme Court: Doctrine Of Clean Hands & Non-Suppression Of Material Facts Is Applicable With Full Force To Every Proceeding Before Any Judicial Forum
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.
Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the Doctrine of “Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to every proceeding before any judicial forum.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal preferred by the Auroville Foundation, challenging the Judgment of the Madras High Court by which it set aside the Notification containing a Standing Order issued by the said 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 added that if it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Petitioner has been guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the Courts as the abuse of process of law and the Petition must be dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter.
Senior Advocate R. Venkatramani appeared for the Appellant while Advocate M.V. Swaroop appeared for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The project Auroville was legally started as the project of a charitable organization, “The Sri Aurobindo Society” in Pondicherry, which was created to diffuse Sri Aurobindo’s thoughts. In 1991, the Government of India notified the Constitution of Auroville Foundation as a statutory body and at present is under the realm of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) as the Central Government undertaking. Some disgruntled residents of Auroville instead of cooperating the Governing Board of the Foundation in the implementation of the legally approved Master Plan and in carrying out the development work of Auroville as per the said Master Plan envisioned by the ‘Mother’, started causing obstructions by filing the Petitions in the High Court one after the other, dragging the Appellant-Foundation into unnecessary litigations.
The Respondent also filed a Writ Petition against the Office Order issued by the Appellant-Auroville Foundation. The same was dismissed and she again filed a Writ Petition, without disclosing the fact of her filing of the earlier Petition and the dismissal of the same. The Appellant raised specific preliminary objections in its Counter Affidavit regarding the maintainability of the Petition and suppression of material facts by the Respondent. However, the High Court without dealing with such an issue, entertained the Writ Petition of the Respondent. Being aggrieved, the Appellant was before the Apex 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 remarked that there remains no shadow of doubt that the Governing Board is vested with all the powers and is empowered to discharge all the functions as may be exercised or discharged by the Foundation, and that the general superintendence, direction, and management of the affairs of the Foundation vests in the Governing Board alone.
“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 was of the opinion that the impugned Standing Order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It also held that there is no legal or statutory right conferred upon the Residents’ Assembly or upon an individual resident to be part of any committee/council constituted by the Governing Board in exercise of its powers conferred under Sections 11(3), 16(1), and 17(e) of the A.F. Act read with Rule 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 thoroughly misdirected itself in misinterpreting the provisions of the A.F. Act and in setting aside the impugned 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.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Respondent.
Cause Title- The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 348)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate R. Venkatramani and AOR Balaji Srinivasan.
Respondent: AOR Nishanth Patil and Advocate M.V. Swaroop.
