Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

They, however, were of the view that the first purpose, viz., of "awakening a consciousness of political rights among the people by spreading the knowledge of politics through the newspapers" would be a charitable purpose. In this context they considered that the decisions of the English Courts that the attainment of political purposes would not be a charitable purpose as advancing an object of general public utility could not be applied in India, and that even if the same were applicable, that under the Trust- deed before them, the awakening of political consciousness among the people was not identical with the advancement of political objects and that the awakening of such conscious- ness need not necessarily be for achieving a political purpose being out of the way they considered that the awakening, of such consciousness would be an advancement of an object of public utility. Several points were raised by learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that the trust-deed did not create a charitable trust. His first submission was that the learned Judges of the High Court were wrong in considering that there were two objects to be subserved by the trust for the attainment of which the trust was founded, but only a single object and that object was political in its nature and that consequently it was not a charitable purpose within the meaning of the law. His next submission was that even if there were two objects as the learned Judges of the High Court had held, they were not really independent objects but both of them were dominated by a single purpose which was political in its nature. At the base of bath of these interpretations of the deed lay the submission that the object to be attained by the trust was political, and if so, it was not charitable. We consider that there is considerable force in the submission of learned Counsel that the trust has been founded with a view to achieve a single objective or purpose, viz., "'the fulfilment perpetually and uninterruptedly" of "the object with which the late Lokmanya took up all activities after he took charge of the newspapers 'Kesari' and 'Mabratha'." It might be that the activities for which the newspapers were utilised after he took charge of them disclosed more than purpose, but the common link between every such line of activity was that it stemmed from a political purpose, for the newspapers were made to serve as the vehicle for achieving his objectives. The question therefore as to the purpose of the trust would have to be resolved by examining the various activities in which he himself engaged and the object with which he engaged in them, but the latter is not the basis upon which the High Court has proceeded in reaching a finding that the trust-deed disclosed a duality of purpose one of which the learned Judges recognised was not charitable but the other was held to be so. The words in the second limb of the first clause referring to "the spreading of political education through the newspapers and thereby making people &live to their political rights" and secondly "the carrying on other multifarious public activities conducive to the national ideal" were really meant as illustrations of activities undertaken by the late Lokmanya during his life-time as is manifest by the use of the words "such as" before the clause. If the object with which the Lokmanya took up his activities after he assumed charge of the newspapers was dominated by a political purpose and the newspapers were used by him to achieve that objective, the illustrations of his activities set out in the clause must be similarly construed. But to this we shall revert later. This apart, there is one other way in which the matter might be approached. The learned Judges of the High Court have held that the object signified by the words "carrying on other multifarious public activities conducive to the national ideal" was much too vague to serve as an object or purpose of an enforceable trust, for besides the vagueness involved in the description of the activity as "conducive to the national ideal etc", there is a further vagueness introduced by the words "other multifarious public activities". One mode of testing the validity of this object would be whether one could uphold the deed as constituting a valid enforceable charitable purpose if it had merely made provision for the trust-fund being utilized for carrying' on multifarious public activities conducive to the national ideal etc." It is obvious that this question could be answered only in one way and that in, favour of holding that the trust was too vague to be valid. If therefore the last portion of the clause was left out of account, two questions would have to be considered (1) whether on a proper construction of cl. (1) read with the rest of the deed, the object sought to be achieved is or is not a single one, and (2) whether the object indicated by the words "spreading of political education through the newspapers and thereby making people alive to their political rights" would be a charitable purpose within the meaning of s. 9 of the Act ? If the last part of the clause (1) were out, as too vague.. the object of the Trust would read, to quote the relevant words "the fulfilment perpetually and uninterruptedly of the very object with which he (the Lokmanya) took up all activities after he took charge of the newspapers such as spreading political education through- these newspapers and thereby making people alive to their political rights." We shall immediately proceed to deal with the import of the words ',the very object with which he took up all activities after he took charge of the newspapers", but before we do so we might state that we have no hesitation in holding that the words of the clause we have just extracted indicate but a single purpose,, viz., the fulfilment of the objects with which Tilak took up all activities after he took charge of the two newspapers.

The law, as stated here, is an extract from the judgment of Lord 'Parker in Bowman v. Secular Society, Ltd.(2) (1) 3rd Edn., Vol. 4, para 523-the title being contributed by Danckwerts

2) [1917] A. C. 406 442.

We shall now turn to the decisions of the Privy Council in appeals from India which bear upon the question as to, whether a trust created for a political purpose or with a view to attaining political objects could be, held to be a charitable trust within the meaning of the words "the advancement of an object of general public utility". in the Trustees of the Tribune Press, Lahore v. Commissioner of Income-tax(1) the court was concerned with the claim to exemption under s. 4 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act which, as we have pointed out earlier, is for purposes relevant in the present context, identical with s. 9 of the Act. The exemption was claimed by the Trustees of the Tribune Press under a Trust which directed them "to maintain the said Press and newspaper in an efficient condition keeping up the liberal policy of the said newspaper and devoting the surplus income of the said press and newspaper..................... in improving the said newspaper and placing it on a footing of permanency It. might be mentioned that evidence was placed before the Privy Council of selected issues of the, newspaper which threw light on the character and the, policy of the paper in lifetime of the founder as explanatory of the direction contained in the I words ",keeping up the liberal policy of the said newspaper". The reference under s. 66(2) of the Income-tax Act came before a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court and as the learned Judges were divided in their opinion, the question was referred to full bench of three judges and by a majority the learned Judges held that the income of the trust was not exempt. It was from this judgment that the trustees preferred the appeal to the Privy Council. Sir George Rankin who delivered the judgment of the Judicial Committee first rejected an argument which sought to sustain the charitable nature of the first by a (1) [1939] L. A. 66. I. A. 241.

a charitable trust, and, as I have said, in my view, some of the objects of the trust certainly go beyond the definition of charitable trust."

The reason of the decision, therefore, was that some of the objects of the trust were charitable and others were not, and as the whole of the profits of the newspapers could be applied for non-charitable purpose, the trust was not valid. The High Court then did not decide whether the first purpose in the trust deed was charitable or not: that question falls to be decide in the present case.

The English decisions, therefore, afford no help to construe s. 9 of the Act to ascertain whether a purpose is charitable or not under the Indian law.

For the reasons I have given, I hold, without any hesitation that the purpose of the trust in the present case is a charitable purpose within the meaning of s. 9 of the Act. Even,on that basis it is contended that a trust giving power to a trustee to spend the trust funds on charitable and non- charitable objects is void and as the High Court held that the second object of the trust was non-charitable the entire trust must fail. This argument ignores the distinction between a trust deed empowering a trustee to spend on a charitable object or a non-charitable object and a trust, deed empowering him to spend on a charitable object and a non-oharitable object. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol.4, at p.272, the following passage appears: