RAMSHARAN AUTYANUPRASI & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is a petition under Alrticle. 32 of the Constitution, filed by Ramsharun Autyanprasi ahd %jendra Singh. They assert that it is public intetest -litigation. This petition was addressed fo Qne of the learned Judges ofthis Court by nanie. B The petitioners state that they .wanted to bring to the netice 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 c oi they are the concerned citizens the State and the Country, it is their duty to seek court's intervention in this matter. It is asserted that in Jaipur, Ra)asthan, the Maharaja Sawai Mansingh II Museum Trust had been created by Late Maharaja Sawai Mansingh as Public Trust and the sa~e was registered as a Public Trust 11nder the provision of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (Rajasthan Act 42 of 1959). D 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 Jl.faharaj 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 Iii favour of the trustee as owners'thereof, to have and hold the same upon Tnist 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 tci use the museum with powers to manage, maintain, protect, promote, pre- serve, augment and improve.the State museum._Itis_stated_that.he_did this by executing a proper deed of indenture and registering the same. G 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.

Clause 33 which is not necessary for the purpose of this litigation, H _of the indenture of Trust made this position very clear. The original

" .,. ,, '"'"~;'lj ·O;<i

RAMSHARAN v. U.O.J. IMUKHARJI, J.] .. 873

trustees in the said Trust included the Settlor, Rajmata Gayatri Devi, A Shri Sir V.T. Krishnamachari, His Highness Maharaja Bhim Singh of Kota, Shri Btij Mohan Birla, Shri Radha Krishnan Chamatia and Shti G.C. Chaterjee in his capacity as the Vice-Chancelior of the Rajasthan University. In the petition it was further stated that the Settlor, Mahataja Sawai Mansingh breathed his last on June 24, 1970 and in his place Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh, son of the Late B Maharaj a became one of the trustees of the above-named trust.

After the death ot Mahataja, 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 firtally at the relevant time when the petition was presented; the Board of Trustees, it was alleged, oonsisted of the following: t

1Copy pinpoint1. Rajrnata Gayatri Devi ot Jaipur,

2Copy pinpoint2. His Higness Maharaj l3him Singh of Kota, D

3Copy pinpoint3. Sh. R.P. Agarwal,

4Copy pinpoint4. Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Sinji,h,

5Copy pinpoint5. Sh. bharam Vira,

6Copy pinpoint6. Dr. Prem Kirpal; and

7Copy pinpoint7. Dr. K.C. Agarwal.

However, it ajl!Jeats that the step-mother, namely; Rajmata Gayatri Devi and the step-son Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh did not Ji pi.Ill on well, so there were disputes and differences regardittg the conduct and the management of the said trust. the petitioners in the petition allege that Lt. Coi. Sawai Bhawani Singh purported to act as Settloi' and had suddenly started acting in a high-handed anti arbitrary manner when in a cavalier fashion, he tried to relieve Rajmata Gayatti Devi. An appropriate proceeding was filed by Rajmata Instituting in ti the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur. It is further stated in the petition that Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh thereafter tried to remove Mr. Dhatam V'fra -and Or. R.C. Agarwal and appointed in their place his own wife Mrs. Padro.in! bevi and ·one another person by the natne of Rajeev Sethi in the trust as additional trustees who, according to the petitioners; were appointed totaiiy ignoring the ptocedure iaid down M: for the appointment of trustees.

p. 874

The petitioners further state that the Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani A 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 B 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 re- solution referred to, nor made apparent. It is quite appa- rent that the man describing himself as his general power of attorney would not be doing so for Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh c 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 ma/a [ides 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 o\ the State and the country which, when it lose these fabulous works of importance and 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 actions 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 i.)th September, i988 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

RAMSHARAN v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJJ, J.] 875

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.

As mentioned hereinbefore, the petitioners assert that it is a public interest litigation. Counsel for the petitioner stated before us that his clients' right to life as enjoined under Article 2i of the Con- B stitution 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 5 lA(f) of the Constitu- tion. The allegations in the petition are disputed seriously in the c 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 pre- pared by Emperor Akbar which are considered as national treasures and some of the rarest manuscripts of Soordas, astronomical manus- D cripts of Sawai Jaisingh, Bhagwat Puran and the paintings dating back to Moghul times, and also the rarest textiles and costumes, arms and' weapons set with valuable jewels, imer 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 sup- porting the present Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh and others support- ing 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 'ihe 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 provi- sions correspond, more or less, to Sections 91 & 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. H

876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S~C.R.

It appears to us, further, that it would be highly improper to A consider this litigation to be a public interest litigation as it is a litiga- tion 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 dis- pute, 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 ot .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.

D in the instant case the allegations are too vague, too indirect and too ltenuous to threaten the quality of life of people at large or any section of the people. The acts complained resulting in the threats aHeged 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 5 lA(f) of the Constitution as a duty has E b.:en cast on every citizen to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. Indeed, it is our duty but the enforcement of that 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 antl an opportunity to the Government and its officers to make basic human rigbts meaningful to

RAMSHARAN v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJI, J.J 877

the deprived and vulnerable 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 .B benefif of the have-nots and the handicapped and to protect them against violation of their basic human rights, which is also the constitu- tional obligation of the executive. In the same decision it was observed by Justice Pathak, as the learned Chief Justice then wai,, that public intf'J"est litigation in its present form constitutes a new chapter in our juCI~ ByStem, acquiring a significant degree of importance in the jurisprudence practised by our courts. The learned Judge depricated c individual communications and suggested that all communications and petitions mvoking the junsdiction 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 D snuation of <his ~ature it is well to bear in mind the observations of the tail pieces 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. E 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 entertain- ing 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 F 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, shoula leave aside procedural shackles and hear such pelltions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying I

the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the (i · neglected. The learned Judge in the context of that case ended his judgment with a question: "ls 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. I

H R.S.S. Petition dismissed.