DAMYANTI NARANGA VS. UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in Damyanti Naranga Vs. Union of India (1971) 3 SCR 840 held that right to form an association includes the right to continue the association with the membership either chosen by the founders or regulated by rules made by the association.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Some eminent educationists assembled at Banaras and founded an association for the development of Hindi and its propagation throughout the country. The Association was named as Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. On 8th January, 1914 it was registered as Society under Society Registration Act, 1860 under the name Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. The Society owned landed properties at Allahabad and some other places.
In 1950, some differences arose between members of the society leading to passing of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1956, by which the Society was converted in Statutory Body. This Act was declared void on the ground that it violated right to form association under Article 19 (1) (c) of original members.
Thereafter, the Parliament passed Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1963. It declared Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, institute of national importance. The statutory Sammelan was constituted as body corporate. All rights and liabilities were transferred from society to the statutory body. The Act gave wide powers to governing body to make rules in respect of matters relating to membership including qualifications and disqualification of members. Provisions could be made under the new Act to include members whom original members may not have admitted. The number of new members could be so large that existing members might be left in minority.
The Act was challenged before High Court which held it valid. Finally the matter reached to the Supreme Court.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
It was contended that the right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (c) is only to form an association and consequently any regulation of the affairs of the association, after it has been formed, would not amount to breach of a right.
The Supreme Court observed that the Act not only regulates the administration of the affairs of the society, but it alters composition of the society. The members who voluntarily formed the association, were now compelled to act with other members who had been imposed as members by the Act and in whose admission to membership, they had no say. It clearly interferes with the right to continue to function as members of the Association which was voluntarily formed by the original founders. The right to form an association necessarily implies that the persons forming the Association have also right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the Association. Any law, by which members are introduced in the voluntary Association without any opinion being given to the members to keep them out or any law which takes away membership of those who have voluntary joined it, will be a law violating the right to form an association. If it is accepted that the right guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (c) is confined to the initial stage of forming an Association and does not protect the right to continue the Association with the membership either chosen by the founders or regulated by rules made by the Association, the right would be meaningless because as soon as an Association is formed a law may be passed interfering with its composition, so that the Association formed may not be able to function at all. The right can be effective only if it is held to include within its right to continue the Association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon by the persons forming the Association.
The Supreme Court held that the Act in so far as it interferes with the composition of the Society in constitution the Sammelan, violates the right of the original members of the Society to form an association guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (c).
The Supreme Court observed that validity of the Act is not protected by Article 19 (4) as the same has not been passed in interest of sovereignty and integrity of India or in interest of public order or morality.
The Supreme Court declared the Act invalid.
_________________________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.