Holding

The petition under Article 32 is not maintainable as a public interest litigation; the dispute is a private grievance and must be pursued under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

Summary

The petitioners sought a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming that the management of the Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust by its Chairman, Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh, violated public interest and their fundamental rights under Articles 21, 49 and 51A(f). The Court held that the dispute was essentially a private family conflict over the trust, not a matter of public interest, and the allegations were too vague to constitute a breach of fundamental rights. Consequently, the petition could not be entertained as a public interest litigation under Article 32. The Court directed that the appropriate remedy lay in the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, specifically sections 37 and 38, which correspond to CPC sections 91 and 92. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petition under Article 32 is maintainable as a public interest litigation.
Whether the alleged violations of Articles 21, 49 and 51A(f) of the Constitution constitute a breach of fundamental rights justifying a writ.
Whether the dispute over the museum trust is a private family matter or a matter of public interest.
Whether the appropriate remedy is under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 rather than Article 32.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedures. Section 91, s. Section 92
Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 32, s. Article 49, s. Article 51A(f)
Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959s. Section 37, s. Section 38

Subjects

public interest litigationArticle 32trust lawRajasthan Public Trust Actprivate grievancefundamental rightsmuseum trustfamily dispute

Judgment

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

NOVEMBER 14, 1988

B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATIIAN, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Public Interest Litiga-
tion-Scope of-Whether maintainable with regard to 'Sawai Man
Singh II Museum Trust'

Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959: Sections 37 and 38-'Sawai
c Man Singh II Museum Trust'-Maintainability of public interest
litigation-Consideration of.

A public trust to manage the Sawai Man Singh II Museum had
been created by the late Maharaja of Jaipur. After the Maharaja's
D death, his son Sawai Bhawani Singh became the Chairman of the Board
ot Trusle!!s, which included his step-mother. Disputes and differences
regarding the conduct and the management of the Trust arose between
the trustees. In this letter-petition, in the nature of p11blic interest litiga·
tlon under article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners, after stating
that the Chairman and his supporters were acting In a manner totally
B detrimental to the interests of the Trust and public interest, have sought
the intervention of the C.:ourt in the matter and prayed for the appoint·
ment of a knowledgeable person of ·integrity as the Chairman of the
Trust.

Dismissing the petition, it was,
'F
HELD: (1) This litigation is between the members of the erstwhile
Raj family to settle their own scores. It is not pro bona publico, for the
bendit of the public, but the benefit of a particular section of people for
their personal rights. Hence, the assert)o'! that this dispute is a public
interest dispute is, wrong. [876A·BJ
G
(2) It is true that life In its expanded horizons today includes all
that gives meaning to a man's life including his tradition, culture and
heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure would cer-
taillly come within the encompass of an expanded concept of Article 21
of the Constitution. \'et, when one seeks relief for breach of Article 21,
.J:I one must conf'me .oneself to some direct, overt and tangible act which
870
_,,

RAMSHARAN v. U.0.1. 871

threatens the fullness of his life or the lives of others in the community. A
In the instant case, the allegations are too vague too indirect and too
tenuous to threaten the quality of life of people at large or any section of
the people. [876C-D)

(3) Public interest litigation is an instrument for the administra-
tion of justice to be used properly in proper cases. Public interest litiga- B
tion does not mean settling disputes between individual parties. [876G J

[Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, [1984) 2 SCR 67,
referred to.

(4) It is imperative to lay down clear guidelines and outline the C
correct parameters for entertaining such petitions. It is only when
courts are apprised of gross violation of fnndamental rights by a group
or a class action or when basis human rights are invaded or when there
are complaints of such acts as 'shock the judicial conscience, that the
courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles
and hear such petitions and extend Its jurisdiction under all available D
provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the
underdog and the neglected. [877F-G I

[Sachidanand Pandey & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.,
[1987) 2 sec 295 at 331, referred to.)
E
5. The instant petition, does not seek to advance any public right.
'It seeks to exploit private grievances. 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 funda-
mental rights of the petitioners. In view of the nature of the allegations
it is a case which is more amenable to be proceeded under sections 37 & F
38 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which correspond to Sec-
tions 91 & 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [875G-H)

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 442 of
1988.
G
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

Dr. Shankar Ghosh and A.K. Gupta for the petitioners.

Rajinder Sachhar, S.C. Paul, M.M. Kashyap, E.C. Agarwala,
S.K. Jain and J.M. Khanna for the Respondents. H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

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
E 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,
F 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
1. Rajrnata Gayatri Devi ot Jaipur,

2. His Higness Maharaj l3him Singh of Kota,
D
3. Sh. R.P. Agarwal,

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

5. Sh. bharam Vira,

6. Dr. Prem Kirpal; and

7. 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.
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H 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 A
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 E
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 F
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 G
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
H 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
A
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.