Supreme Court validates society elections and clarifies rights of defaulting members

Background of the dispute

The Supreme Court, in ADV Babasaheb Wasade & Ors. Vs Manohar Gangadhar Muddeshwar & Ors., examined the validity of elections to the Executive Committee of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mul, an educational society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

The matter arose out of a challenge to a Change Report regarding elections held on 08.09.2002. The Assistant Charity Commissioner had rejected this Change Report, which order was upheld successively by the District Judge and the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The Supreme Court set aside all these orders and restored the acceptance of the Change Report by the Joint Charity Commissioner.

Structure and functioning of the society

Registration and categories of members

  • The society was formed in 1946 and registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
  • Subsequently, it was also registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and its rules and regulations were registered as its bye‑laws.
  • The society’s bye‑laws classified members into four groups:
    • Life Members
    • Employee Members
    • Ordinary Members
    • Donor Members

Each category of member was required to pay an annual subscription of Rs. 11/‑.

Vacancies in key posts and appointment of Working President

Over time, the principal office bearers—President, Vice‑President and Secretary—passed away. Before his demise on 24.05.1998, the then President, being seriously ill, presided over an Executive Body meeting on 01.07.1997 in which Advocate Babasaheb Wasade (appellant No. 1) was designated as Working President to manage the day‑to‑day affairs of the society.

This resolution was never challenged by any member or trustee, and appellant No. 1 continued to act as Working President for several years without objection.

Elections and Change Report

Requisition and convening of meeting

With no President, Vice‑President or Secretary in office, 16 members of the society submitted a written requisition on 20.08.2002 seeking an extraordinary meeting to conduct elections.

Acting as Working President, appellant No. 1:

  1. Issued notice dated 03.09.2002 convening a special meeting for elections;
  2. Held the meeting on 08.09.2002, where a new Executive Committee was elected, with appellant No. 1 elected as President and appellant No. 2 as Secretary;
  3. Filed Change Report No. 668 of 2002 under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur.

Objections to the Change Report

Seven individuals claiming to be members of the society objected to the Change Report. Their main grounds were:

  • They had not received notice of the meeting dated 08.09.2002;
  • Appellant No. 1, as Working President, had no authority under the bye‑laws to convene the meeting, which they argued could only be called by the Secretary or, failing that, the President;
  • Some requisitionists (signatories 12 to 16 on the requisition dated 20.08.2002) were allegedly not validly admitted as members;
  • Signatories 4 to 7 were said to have retired from employment and thus allegedly ceased to be Employee Members.

The elected Secretary filed a detailed reply, asserting that:

  • All these signatories were validly admitted members;
  • The seven objectors were in default of annual subscription beyond the period specified in Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and hence they had no right to vote or be counted as members;
  • Consequently, failure to serve notice on them could not affect the legality of the meeting or the elections.

Proceedings before authorities and High Court

  1. Assistant Charity Commissioner (19.06.2010)

    • Allowed the objections;
    • Rejected Change Report No. 668 of 2002.

  2. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur (Appeal – 12.04.2016)

    • Allowed the appeal filed by the appellants;
    • Accepted the Change Report and upheld the elections.

  3. District Judge‑IV, Chandrapur (Misc. Civil Application No. 50 of 2016 – 29.07.2016)

    • Set aside the Joint Charity Commissioner’s order;
    • Restored the rejection of the Change Report.

  4. Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (First Appeal No. 811 of 2016 – 20.07.2017)

    • Dismissed the appeal;
    • Confirmed the District Judge’s decision and the initial rejection of the Change Report.

These concurrent findings against the assessee‑society were challenged before the Supreme Court.

Undisputed factual matrix

The Supreme Court recorded several key facts as admitted by both sides: