Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The purposes include organising public movements, and even if you limit those general words by the words 'calculated to promote the national ideal', it seems to me impossible to say that the promotion of public movements calculated in the view of the trustees to promote the national ideal can be regarded as necessarily of public utility."

The learned Chief Justice then went on to observe:

"It seems to me clear that under Clause 1 of this trust-deed the whole of the profits of the newspapers could be applied for any one of the various objects specified and, therefore, if any of those objects do not fall within the definition of a charitable object, then the clause cannot be regarded as constituting a charitable trust, and, as I have said, in my view some of the objects of the trust certainty go beyond the definition of charitable trust."

It was further observed by the learned Chief Justice in that case that the promotion of national ideal was not necessarily an object of public utility. For these reasons, it was held that the Kesari Maratha Trust was not a charitable trust within the meaning of the Income-tax Act, as some of the objects of the trust were too vague and wide to be regarded as charitable. The result of this decision was that since 1936 this trust was not treated as a charitable trust for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. Then, in the year 1950, the Bombay Public Trusts Act was enacted by the State Legislature and in 1952 a question arose as to whether the Kesari Maratha Trust was liable to be registered under the provisions of that Act. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Poona, held that this trust was a public trust within the meaning of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and was, therefore, liable to be registered. From that decision the trustees appealed and in appeal the Charity Commissioner confirmed the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Thereupon, the trustees filed Miscellaneous Application No. 325 of 1954 in the District Court at Poona under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Relying on the decision of the Chief Justice Beaumont and Mr. Justice Rangnekar in the High Court Reference No. 3 of 1936, which was a reference under Section 66, sub-s. (2) of the Income-tax Act, the trustees contended in their application No. 325 of 1954 that the Kesari Maratha Trust was not a public trust and that, therefore, the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act would not apply to it. The learned District Judge held that, according to Clause 1 of the trust-deed, the purposes of the trust-deed were : (1) political education; (2) creating a consciousness of political rights amongst the people; and (3) public activities which are conducive to the promotion of the national goal. Then the learned District Judge said in the course of his judgment that the "creation of a political consciousness was a part of political education" and observed:

6. In the body of their Lordships' judgment in the Tribune case (A), their Lordships referred to the House of Lords case of Bowman v. Secular Society Ltd. (B). Mr. Patwardhan also relies upon it. In that case, Lord Parker, in the course of his Lordship's address, said (pp. 441-442);

"... .A trust to be valid must be for the benefit of individuals, which this is certainly not, or must be in that class of gifts for the benefit of the public which the Courts in this country recognize as charitable in the legal as opposed to the popular sense of that term. Moreover, if a trustee is given a discretion to apply trust property for purposes some of which are and some are not charitable, the trust is void for uncertainty..... The abolition of religious tests, the dis-establishment of the Church, the secularization of education, the alteration of the law touching religion or marriage, or the observation of the Sabbath, are purely political objects. Equity has always refused to recognize such objects as. charitable. It is true that a gift to an association formed for their attainment may, if the association be unincorporated, be upheld as an absolute gift to its members, or, if the association be incorporated, as an absolute gift to the corporate body; but a trust for the attainment of political objects has always been held invalid, not because it is illegal, for every one is at liberty to advocate or promoto by any lawful means a change in the law, but because the Court has no means of judging whether a proposed change in the law will or will not be for the public benefit, and therefore cannot say that a gift to secure the change is a charitable gift. The same considerations apply when there is a trust for the publication of a book. The Court will examine the book, and if its objects be charitable, in the legal sense it will give effect to the trust as a good charity..... but if its object be political it will refuse to enforce the trust....."

19. It may be remembered next that some of the decisions relied upon by Mr. Patwardhan are cases under the Income-tax Act or the Charitable Endowments Act. The Tribune case (A) and Tilak Jubilee Trust Fund case (J) were cases under the Income-tax Act. Subhas Chandra Base v. Gordhandas I Patel (I) was a case under the Charitable Endowments Act. Under both these Acts, in order that a trust may be held to be a charitable trust, all the objects of the trust must be charitable objects. That is not the position under the, Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, Section 11 of this Act lays down that a public trust, created for purposes some of which are charitable or religious and some are not, shall not be deemed to be void in respect of charitable or religious purpose, only on the ground that it is void with respect to the non-charitable or non-religious purpose. For this reason also the English cases, to which we are referred by Mr. Patwardhan, would not assist the trustees.