strike to secure a ban on the objectionable book. This is really a question of the degree
of reaction to the objectionable book on which we would not like to comment. The
appellants could have expressed their displeasure over the contents of the
objectionable book, or dissociated themselves from the objectionable book or even
taken proactive steps to have the objectionable book banned or proscribed. That the
appellants chose only to express their displeasure may be construed as a mild reaction
(as compared to outright condemnation of the objectionable book), particularly since
the appellants had nothing to do with its publication. But the question is whether the
mild reaction is perverse or could in any way be held to be a breach of trust or an
absence of effective administration of the Trust warranting the removal of the trustees.
We do not think so. Failure to take steps to ban a book that is critical of the
philosophical and spiritual guru of a Trust would not fall within the compass of
administration of the Trust. It might be an omission of the exercise of proper
discretion on the part of the trustees, but certainly not an omission touching upon the
administration of the Trust. We are not in agreement with the High Court that the
failure of the appellants to take the initiative in banning the objectionable book gives
rise to a cause of action for the removal of the trustees of the Trust and settling a
scheme for its administration. The trustees of a trust are entitled to a wide discretion in
the administration of a trust. A disagreement with the exercise of the discretion
(however passionate the disagreement might be) does not necessarily lead to a
conclusion of maladministration, unless the exercise of discretion is perverse. In our
opinion, the High Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the appellants
for the revocation of leave granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings under
Section 92 of the CPC, in the facts of this case.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCITON
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25788 of 2013)
Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust and Ors. …Appellants
Versus
R. Ramanathan and Ors. ...Respondents
Citation:(2016) 6 SCC105
Madan B. Lokur, J.
