Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday quashed a circular issued by the Charity Commissioner prohibiting use of the phrases on corruption for the names of charitable organisations and trusts observing “Naam mein kya rakha hai” (What’s in a name)”.
The 2018 circular prohibited the use of phrases like Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Mahasangh, Bhrashtachar Virodi Andolan, Bhrashtachar Mukta Bharat, or Human Rights in the names of charitable trusts or organisations. The circular also required existing trusts to remove these phrases from their titles, arguing that eradicating corruption was the government’s responsibility.
They noted, “Naam mein kya rakha hai, kaam dekhna chahiye. Agar kaam galat ho to sakht karvaai karni chahiye” (What’s in a name? One should look at the work. If the work is wrong, strict action should be taken).
The bench highlighted that fighting corruption and protecting human rights align with the legal definition of “charitable purpose” under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. They reasoned that these causes serve the public interest, stating, “Corruption has significant negative effects on all areas of human wellbeing and is perceived as one of the major problems, jeopardising economic development, the functioning and legitimacy of government institutions, the rule of law, and the validity of the State itself.”
The court also linked corruption with human rights violations, emphasizing, “Corruption and human rights are closely associated. Effective protection and guarantee of human rights necessarily include mitigating systematic problems such as corruption.” The judges observed that both issues are addressed at local, national, and international levels.
Rejecting the circular’s rationale, the bench stated that the mere use of such phrases in an organisation’s title does not imply illegal or illegitimate conduct. They clarified, “Merely because such phrases are used does not mean that such organisations act as kangaroo courts. If any organisation does function unlawfully, the State can and should act against them, but not by forcing them to change their name.”
The court concluded that preventing organisations from using these phrases is contrary to their right to pursue charitable objectives. It reiterated that efforts to eradicate corruption benefit society at large, stating, “An organisation set up for fighting corruption would certainly fall within the phrase ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility.”
