Summary
The Court struck down the Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14. The Act vested a century-old trust institution in the State and dissolved the trust without any inquiry or finding of mismanagement, with less drastic means available, compensation capped at one rupee, and the same outcome as a lapsed 1983 ordinance. The High Court also erred in deciding the case on the unpleaded footing that the trust was public.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could decide the case on the basis that the trust was a public trust when neither party had pleaded or argued it.
- Whether the 2015 Act is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the Act effects a compulsory, confiscatory acquisition offending Article 300A read with Article 14.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaAfter tracing the doctrine of arbitrariness from S.G. Jaisinghani and E.P. Royappa to Shayara Bano, Joseph Shine and Association for Democratic Reforms, the Court held that manifest arbitrariness is a ground to strike down legislation and applied it to invalidate the Act. (¶¶ 23, 24, 26, 28, 32, 35, 36, 49, 50)
- Article 300A, Constitution of IndiaA law depriving a person of property must be just, fair, reasonable and not confiscatory; an acquisition with compensation reduced to a token amount fails that standard. (¶¶ 45, 51)
- Section 3 (definition of 'trust'), Indian Trusts Act, 1882A trust is an obligation attached to ownership arising from confidence reposed by the settlor and accepted by the trustee; the settlor's formal deed appointing trustees, providing for succession to office and reversion on failure showed that a public-facing object alone did not make the trust public. (¶ 20)
- Sections 3 and 4(2), Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015Section 3 vests the Institute & Library with all rights, title and interest in the State and Section 4(2) dissolves the trust deed, agreement, lease and committees; together they effect total displacement rather than regulation, disproportionate to the stated object of better management. (¶¶ 38, 39, 48)
- Section 7, Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015Authorises compensation, if any, of at most one rupee after examining claims, with no principles, criteria or safeguards; held illusory and confiscatory, aggravating the arbitrariness. (¶¶ 44, 45)
Held
- That an institution serves a public purpose or is open to the public does not by itself make the trust a public trust; its character depends on the manner of dedication, structure, control and rights reserved to the settlor and successors. The High Court also erred in deciding the case on the footing that the trust was public when the parties had argued it as a private trust, without giving them an opportunity to address that question. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- Whether the trust is public or private does not decide the Act's validity; any compulsory acquisition and vesting must in either case satisfy Article 14. (¶ 22)
- Manifest arbitrariness is an established ground for striking down legislation under Article 14. It covers laws made capriciously, irrationally or without adequate determining principle, as well as excessive, disproportionate or uncanalised measures. The power is to be exercised with restraint, but the Court must intervene where substantive unreasonableness is embedded in a statute. (¶¶ 32, 35, 36, 43)
- The Act was manifestly arbitrary. The original records showed no communication to the trust alleging mismanagement and no inquiry or opportunity to respond. Day-to-day supervision lay with the State Librarian, against whom no action was ever taken. The State's large post-takeover investment showed that grant-in-aid, conditional funding, audit or oversight would have sufficed without acquisition. (¶¶ 37, 39, 40, 41, 42)
- The legislative history aggravated the arbitrariness: the Act sought substantially what the lapsed 1983 ordinances had sought, without any change of circumstances or fresh material. It also singled out one functioning institution for takeover without any intelligible basis while many other public libraries lay defunct. (¶¶ 46, 47)
- Viewed cumulatively (total vesting, dissolution of the trust, no finding of necessity, illusory compensation and no safeguards), the Act failed the tests of reasonableness, proportionality and non-arbitrariness and the Article 300A standard. Having so held, the Court found it unnecessary to decide the challenges on legislative competence and repugnancy. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 29.02.2024 set aside; the 2015 Act declared unconstitutional and struck down; the trust and its rights of management restored to their position before the Act, without precluding State financial assistance, administrative support or regulatory oversight in accordance with law.