The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a plea moved by a murder convict claiming his right to be appointed as secretary of a society which ran an educational institution on the grounds that he had been lawfully elected.
While noting that education forms the backbone of a nation’s strength and character, the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that persons with such criminal antecedents cannot be permitted to run the affairs of an educational institution and blight the education prospects of the country’s youth.
“Law cannot countenance a situation wherein convicted criminals run educational institutions as a matter of right,” said the court.
The petitioner had moved the high court challenging an order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies, and Chits declining to register the list of office bearers of the society namely ‘Shiksha Prasar Bankatu Bujurg Etawah’ on the footing that a reference was pending before the prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.
It was the petitioner’s argument that he had been lawfully elected as the secretary of the society, therefore, the Deputy Registrar should have registered his name in the list of office-bearers of the society.
However, the court observed that the right of the petitioner to be appointed as Secretary of the society had to be construed in light of Section 16A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The said section provides that any person convicted of any offence in connection with the formation, promotion, management or conduct of the affairs of a society, or of a body corporate, or of an offence involving moral turpitude shall be disqualified for being a member of the governing body of a society.
The court opined that the phrase “moral turpitude” is of a wide ambit. While referring to the high court’s ruling in Mahak Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (1999) wherein disqualification of a Gram Panchayat who had been convicted for murder was in question, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in The State Bank of India Vs. P. Soupramaniane (2019) where scope of the term “moral turpitude” and its applicability to the services of an employee was considered upon, the single judge bench said: “The term moral turpitude cannot be defined by an iron cast rule or an inflexible formula to fit all cases. To determine whether an offence comes within the purview of the term ‘moral turpitude’ a fact based enquiry has to be made.”
Therefore, stressing that the present matter pertained to the management of an educational institution, court opined that the offence of murder for which the petitioner had been convicted will be comprised in the ambit of “moral turpitude”.
“The provision has been created to curb mischiefs of like nature; it has to be applied to purge educational institutions of criminal elements, and lift the curse of criminal influence on formative minds,” the court said, while dismissing the present plea.
Further, for the petitioner and one of the respondent’s failures to disclose their antecedents before the court in the first instance, the court imposed a cost of Rs 1,00,000 upon each.
Moreover, the court issued a slew of directions to the Additional Chief Secretary, Institutional Finance, Government of UP to curb the menace of criminal elements usurping educational institutions.
Read all the Latest India News and Karnataka Elections 2023 updates here
Comments
0 comment