http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: RAMSHARAN AUTYANUPRASI & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1988

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) RANGNATHAN, S.

CITATION:  1989 AIR  549            1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 870  1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 251 JT 1988 (4)   577  1988 SCALE  (2)1399  CITATOR INFO :  R          1989 SC 860  (2)  RF         1991 SC 983  (2)

ACT:     Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32--Public Interest Litigation--Scope  of--Whether maintainable with  regard  to ‘Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust’ %     Rajasthan  Public Trust Act, 1959: Sections 37  and  38- ‘Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust’--Maintainability of public interest litigation--Consideration of.

HEADNOTE:      A public trust to manage the Sawai Man Singh II  Museum had  been created by the late Maharaja of Jaipur. After  the Maharaja’s  death,  his son Sawai Bhawani Singh  became  the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, which included his  step- mother.  Disputes and differences regarding the conduct  and the  management of the Trust arose between the trustees.  In this  letter-petition,  in  the nature  of  public  interest litigation  under  article  32  of  the  Constitution,   the petitioners,  after stating     that the Chairman  and  his supporters  were acting in a manner totally  detrimental  to the interests of the Trust and public interest, have  sought the  intervention of the Court in the matter and prayed  for the  appointment of a knowledgeable person of  integrity  as the Chairman of the Trust.     Dismissing the petition, it was, HELD:  (I)  This litigation is between the  members  of  the erstwhile  Raj family to settle their own scores. It is  not pro  bono  publico, for the benefit of the public,  but  the benefit of a particular section of people for their personal rights.  Hence, the assertion that this dispute is a  public interest dispute is, wrong. [86A-B]      (2) It is true that life in its expanded horizons today includes  all that gives meaning to a man’s  life  including his  tradition, culture and heritage and protection of  that heritage in its full measure would certainly come within the encompass  of  an  expanded concept of  Article  21  of  the Constitution.  Yet,  when  one seeks relief  for  breach  of Article  21,     one must confine oneself to  some  direct,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

overt and tangible act which  threatens the fullness of  his                                                    PG NO 870                                                    PG NO 871 life or the lives of others in the community. In the instant case,  the  allegations are too vague too indirect  and  too tenuous  to threaten the quality of life of people at  large or any section of the people. [876C-D]      (3) Public interest litigation is an instrument for the administration  of  justice to be used  properly  in  proper cases.  Public  interest litigation does not  mean  settling disputes between individual parties. [876G]     [Bandhua  Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, [1984]  2  SCR 67, referred to.      (4)  It is imperative to lay down clear guidelines  and outline   the  correct  parameters  for  entertaining   such petitions.  It  is only when courts are  apprised  of  gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or  when  basis human rights are invaded or when  there  are complaints  of such acts as shock the, judicial  conscience, that  the courts, especially this Court, should leave  aside procedural  shackles and hear such petitions and extend  its jurisdiction  under all available provisions  for  remedying the  hardships and miseries of the needy, the  underdog  and the neglected. [877F-G]     [Sachidanand  Pandey  & Anr. y. State of West  Bengal  & Ors., [l987] 2 SCC 295 at 331, referred to.]      5.  The instant petition, does not seek to advance  any public  right. It seeks to exploit private  grievances.  The petition  under  Article  32  of  the  Constitution  is  not maintainable.  On the facts as appearing from the  pleadings it  cannot  be  predicted that there is any  breach  of  any fundamental rights of the petitioners. In view of the nature of the allegations it is a case which is more amenable to be proceeded  under  sections 37 & 38 of the  Rajasthan  Public Trust Act, 1959, which correspond to Sections 91 & 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [875G-H]

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL JURlSDlCTlON: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 442  of 1988.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of IndIa).      Dr. Shankar Ghosh and A.K. Gupta for the petitioners.      Rajinder Sachhar, S.C. Paul, M.M. Kashyap, E.C. Agarwala, S.K. Jain and J.M. Khanna for the Respondents.                                                    PG NO 872     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a petition under Article 32  of the Constitution, filed by Ramsharan Autyanprasi  and Vijendra  Singh.  They  assert that it  is  public  interest litigation.  This  petition  was addressed  to  one  of  the learned Judges of this Court by name.      The petitioners state that they wanted to bring to  the notice  of  the  Judge  the  total  disarry  caused  by  the arbitrary and high-handed running of the premier institution of  ancient art, culture and history in  Rajasthan,  namely, the  "Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust" by its  Chairman  Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh. They further state that since they are the concerned citizens of the State and the Country,  it is  their duty to seek court’s intervention in this  matter. It is asserted that in Jaipur, Rajasthan, the Maharaja Sawai Mansingh  II Museum Trust had been created by Late  Maharaja Sawai  Mansingh as Public Trust and the same was  registered as  a  Public  Trust under the provision  of  the  Rajasthan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

Public Trust Act, 1959 (Rajasthan Act 42 of 1959).      The   petitioners  State  that  Lt.  General   Maharaja Rajendra  Maharaj Dhiraj Sewai Man Singh of Jaipur  and  his predecessors  rulers of erstwhile Jaipur State  had  founded the  museum for the benefit of the public, in a  portion  of the City Palace Jaipur and this museum has a large number of items  of  value and is being used for the  benefit  of  the public of the State of Jaipur and by visitors to that State. Hence, Lt. General His Highness Maharaj Sawai Man Singh  II, Maharaj  of  Jaipur  had dedicated and  declared  the  State museum  along with all the collections  constituted  therein and an additional sum of Rs. 1 lakh after relinquishing  all personal  rights, title and interest therein and vested  the same in favour of the trustee as owners thereof to have  and hold the same upon Trust for the benefit of all  inhabitants of  Jaipur  and for the visitors to Jaipur  irrespective  of caste,  creed or religion, giving them right to have  access to  and  be  at liberty to use the  museum  with  powers  to manage,  maintain, protect. promote, preserve,  augment  and improve  the State museum. It is stated that he did this  by executing  a  proper deed of indenture and  registering  the same. The Trust so created was named "His Highness  Maharaja of  Jaipur  Museum Trust" and was expressly declared  to  be irrevocable  and late Maharaja having relinquished  his  own interest  totally  reserving  no rights  or  powers  by  the settlor.                                                    PG NO 873      Clause  33  which is not necessary for the  purpose  of this  litigation,  of  the  indenture  of  Trust  made  this position very clear. The original trustees in the said Trust included  the Settlor, Rajmata Gayatri Devi, Shri  Sir  V.T. Krishnamachari,  His Highness Maharaja Bhim Singh  of  Kota, Shri Brij Mohan Birla, Shri Radha Krishnan Chamaria and Shri G.C.  Chaterjee in his capacity as the  Vice--Chancellor  of the  Rajasthan  University. In the petition it  was  further stated  that the Settlor, Maharaja Sawai  Mansingh  breathed his  last on June 24, 1970 and in his place Lt.  Col.  Sawai Bhawani  Singh, son of the Late Maharaja became one  of  the trustees of the above-named Trust.      After the death of Maharaja, the name of the Trust  was changed as "Maharaja Sawai Mansingh II Museum Trust". During the course of time the trust body changed as certain members came  and  went, and finally at the relevant time  when  the petition  was  presented,  the Board  of  Trustees,  it  was alleged, consisted of the following:     1. Rajmata Gayatri Devi of Jaipur,     2. His Higness Maharaj Bhim Singh of Kota,     3. Sh . R.P. Agarwal,     4. Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh,     5. Sh. Dharam Vira,     6. Dr. Prem Kirpal; and     7. Dr. K.C. Agarwal.      However,  it  appears  that  the  step-mother,  namely, Rajmata Gayatri Devi and the step-son Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh  did  not  pull on well, so there  were  disputes  and differences regarding the conduct and the management of  the said Trust. The petitioners in the petition allege that  Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh purported to act as Settlor and had suddenly  started  acting  in a  high-handed  and  arbitrary manner  when  in  a cavalier fashion, he  tried  to  relieve Rajmata Gayatri Devi. An appropriate proceeding was filed by Rajmata  instituting  in the Court of  the  District  Judge, Jaipur.  It is further stated in the petition that Lt.  Col. Bhawani Singh thereafter tried to remove Mr. Dharam Vira and Dr.  R.C. Agarwal and appointed in their place his own  wife

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

Mrs.  Padmini  Devi and one another person by  the  name  of Rajeev  Sethi  in  the trust  as  additional  trustees  who, according   to  the  petitioners,  were  appointed   totally ignoring  the  procedure laid down for  the  appointment  of trustees.                                                    PG NO 874      The  petitioners further state that the Lt. Col.  Sawai Bhawani  Singh  had  started acting in  the  manner  totally detrimental  to  the interest of the trust and  against  the public of Jaipur, who were greatly shocked. It was stated as follows:      "However,  it added that the Board of Trustees  has  by unanimous  resolution  already decided to dispose  of  Atish Market  etc., a very valuable property of the Trust  in  the heart  of Jaipur City, possibly to some of his  cohorts.  No notice  as  such  of the said resolution was  given  or  any resolution  referred  to,  nor made apparent.  It  is  quite apparent  that  the man describing himself  as  his  general power of attorney would not be doing so for Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh  as a Trustee of the Museum Trust, as that is  an  ex- officio in position Bhawani Singh holds and is not  partable or usable by any attorney. The whole act reeks of mala fides and  appears  to  be the work of a warped  mind  whose  sole intent and purpose seems to be to bring down the high ideals of  the  great and honourable family of  Jaipur.  Sir.  Your Lordship  on behalf of the people of Jaipur. nay, or  behalf of the people of Rajasthan and the country as a whole we beg of   you,   to  intervene  in  the  matter,   appoint   some knowledgeable  and  a  person of character  and  dignity  as Chairman of the Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust so that  the properties  of  the  Trust are not  frittered  away  to  the detriment  of  the interests of the State  and  the  country which  when  it  lose these  fabulous  works  of  importance pricelessness would not find them elsewhere."      In  the premises the petitioners prayed that the  Trust be  run by some Board of Trustees barring, however Lt.  Col. Bhawani Singh pending disposal of the application, and  that an early action be taken to do away with the high-handedness and  arbitrary  action  of Lt. Col. Bhawani  Singh  and  his agents.      Upon  this application being moved, it appears  that  a Bench  of this Court on 27th April, 1988 issued  notice  and pending   the   notice,  issued  an  order   of   injunction restraining  the trustees from alienating any of the  assets of  the  museum  trust in any manner.  Thereafter,  on  13th September,  1988  in view of the assertion made  before  the Court  that  the valuable items from the  museum  are  being clandestinely  removed,  the  Distt.  Judge  of  Jaipur  was directed  to appoint one person from his  establishment  who should  ensure  that  nothing is  removed  from  the  museum without  the  leave  of  this  Court.  There  were   further applications  made and how this application has come up  for final disposal.                                                    PG NO 875      As mentioned hereinbefore, the petitioners assert  that it is public interest litigation. Counsel for the petitioner stated before us that his clients’ right to life as enjoined under Article 21 of the Constitution had been infringed.  He further drew our attention to Article 49 of the Constitution which casts a duty on the State to protect every monument or place  or object of artistic or historic interest  (delcared by  or  under  law made by Parliament)  to  be  of  national importance,  from  spoilation,  disfigurement,  destruction, removal,  disposal  or export, as the case may be.  He  also referred   to  Article  51A(f)  of  the  Constitution.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

allegations  in the petition are disputed seriously  in  the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents Nos.  5 &  6  by  one Dr. A.S. Paul son of Mr.  B.S.  Paul.  In  the rejoinder affidavit it was further alleged that Razanama and the Ramayan manuscripts prepared by Emperor Akbar which  are considered  as  national treasures and some  of  the  rarest Manuscripts  of Soordas, astronomical manuscripts  of  Sawai Jaisingh,  Bhagwat  Puran and the paintings dating  back  to Moghul  times, and also the rarest textiles  an-l  costumes, arms and weapons set with valuable jewels. inter alia,  were not  there  in  the  museum  at  the  time  of  moving  this application.      At  the  outset,  it may be stated  that  Mr.  Sachhar, learned  counsel for the respondents on the instructions  of his  clients,  Dr. A.S. Paul, who is present  in  the  Court assured this Court that the said items are there. It appears that  there are serious disputes about the running of  trust between  the heirs of the erstwhile Jaipur Raj family.  some supporting  the  present Lt. Col. Sawai  Bhawani  Singh  and others  supporting  the  Rajmata  Gayatri  Devi.  There  are several litigations between the parties in different  courts in Rajasthan over those matters.      In  the aforesaid view of matter we are of the  opinion that  the petition under Article 32 of the  Constitution  is not  maintainable.  On  the  facts  as  appearing  from  the pleadings it cannot be predicted that there is any breach of any  fundamental right of the petitioners. We are  fortified by this conclusion by the fact that in view of the nature of the  allegations made in the present context, it is  a  case which  is more amenable to be proceeded under sections 37  & 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, as amended  from time to time. These provisions correspond, more or less,  to Sections 91 & 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.                                                    PG NO 876      It  appears  to us, further, that it  would  be  highly improper to consider this litigation to be a public interest litigation as it is a litigation between the members of  the erstwhile  Raj family to settle their own scores. It is  not pro bono publico, for the benefit of the public, but for the benefit of a particular section of people for their personal rights.  Hence, the assertion that this dispute is a  public interest dispute, is wrong. The petitioner has asserted that there is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution,  which enshrines protection of life and personal liberty and states that no person shall be deprived of his life    or  personal liberty save according to the procedure established by  law. It is true that life in its expanded horizons today includes all  that  give  meaning  to  a  man’s  life  including  his tradition,  culture  and  heritage and  protection  of  that heritage in its full measure would certainly come within the encompass  of  an  expanded concept of  Article  21  of  the Constitution. Yet, when one seeks relief for breach of  Art. 21,  one  must  confine oneself to some  direct,  overt  and tangible act which threatens the fullness of his life or the lives of others in the community.     In  the instant case the allegations are too vague,  too indirect and too tenuous to threaten the quality of life  of people  at  large  or any section of the  people.  The  acts complained  resulting in the threats alleged are too  remote and,  in our opinion, to be amenable under      Article  32 of  the  Constitution. The petitioners further  assert  that there   has  been  violation  of  Article  51A(f)   of   the Constitution  as  a duty has been cast on every  citizen  to value  and  preserve  the rich  heritage  of  our  composite culture. Indeed, it is our duty hut the enforcement of  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

duty  by means of a writ under Art. 32 of the  Constitution, in  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  this  case,  is  not warranted.  In  this case there was no  evidence  evidencing that  any attempt had been made to ask the State to  protect any  monument or any application had been made to the  State seeking intervention and action.     In  that view of the matter, resort to Art. 49  was  not just.  We think that invocation of the jurisdiction of  this Court as a public interest litigation, in the background  of the  allegations made in the petition and in the context  of this   case,   was  wholly  unjustified.   Public   interest litigation  is  an  instrument  for  the  administration  of justice to be used properly in proper cases. Public interest litigation   does   not  mean  settling   disputes   between individual  parties. This Court in Bandhua Mukti  Morcha  v. Union of India, [1984] 2 SCR 67 dealt with this question and Justice  Bhagwati,  as the learned Chief Justice  then  was, observed  that  public  interest litigation is  not  in  the nature of adversary litigation but it is a challenge and  an opportunity to the Government and its officers to make basic human  rights  meaningful  to the  deprived  and  vulnerable                                                    PG NO 877 sections  of  the  community  and  to  assure  them  social, economic  and political justice which is the signature  tune of our Constitution. He reiterated that the Court entertains public interest litigation, not in a cavilling spirit or  in a  confrontational  mood  or  with  a  view  to  tilting  at executive authority of seeking to usurp it, but its  attempt is  only to ensure observance of social and economic  rescue programmes, legislative as well as executive, framed for the benefit of the have-nots and the handicapped and to  protect them against violation of their basic human rights, which is also the constitutional obligation of the executive. In  the same  decision  it was observed by Justice  Pathak,  as  the learned   Chief  Justice  then  was,that   public   interest litigation in its present form constitutes a new chapter  in our  judicial  system,  acquiring a  significant  degree  of importance in the jurisprudence practised by our courts. The learned  Judge  depricated  individual  communications   and suggested that all communications and petitions invoking the jurisdiction  of the Court, must be addressed to the  entire court,  that is to say, the Chief Justice and his  companion Judges. Judged by that standard, this petition does not seek to  advance  any public right. It seeks to  exploit  private grievances. Indeed, in a situation of this nature it is well to  bear in mind the observations of the tailpieces  in  the decision  in  Sachidanand  Pandey & Anr. v.  State  of  West Bengal  &  Ors., [1987] 2 SCC 295 at 331 where  the  learned Judge highlighted the necessity to delineate the  parameters of public interest litigation. The Learned Judge noted  that today public spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must, however, inspire confidence in courts and among the public, and  must be  above  suspicion. Hence, it is imperative  to  lay  down clear  guidelines  and outline the  correct  parameters  for entertaining  such petitions. If courts do not restrict  the free  flow  of  such cases in the name  of  public  interest litigations,  the traditional litigation along with  justice will  suffer. It is only when courts are apprised  of  gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or  when  basic human rights are invaded or when  there  are complaints  of  such acts as shock the  judicial  conscience that  the courts. especially this Court, should leave  aside procedural  shackles and hear such petitions and extend  its jurisdiction  under all available provisions  for  remedying

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

the  hardships and miseries of the needy, the  underdog  and the neglected. The learned Judge in the context of that case ended his judgment with a question: "Is there something more than  what meets the eye in this case?". The answer  in  the instant  case is obvious--there is very much more than  what meets   the  eye  in  the  instant  case  before  us.   This application   must.  therefore,  fail  and  is   accordingly dismissed. R.S.S.                            Petition dismissed.