Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, a society founded in 1910 for the development and propagation of Hindi and registered on 8 January 1914 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with its head office at Allahabad. The society had three classes of members and various committees through which it carried on its work, owning landed properties and funds. Internal differences emerged in 1950, leading to litigation and appointment of a receiver. The Uttar Pradesh legislature passed the U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1956, which was declared void by the Allahabad High Court for violating the freedom of association under Article 19(1)(c). Parliament then enacted the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962, declaring the institution known as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as of national importance and constituting a statutory body corporate by the same name. The Act vested all property of the old society in the new Sammelan and empowered the first Governing Body to frame rules for membership, including admission of new members. Original members challenged the Act by a writ petition under Article 32 and an appeal by special leave from the Allahabad High Court, which had upheld the Act on the ground that all old members became members of the new Sammelan. The petitioners contended that the Act infringed their right to form association by altering the association's composition without their consent and violated their right to hold property under Article 19(1)(f) by transferring all society property to a new body. The respondents argued that inclusion of all old members meant no infringement, and that the Act was a valid exercise of legislative power under Entry 63 of List I for an institution of national importance; alternatively, they submitted that the Act created a separate body while the old society continued to exist. The Supreme Court held that the right to form an association includes the right to continue the association with its composition as voluntarily agreed upon, and any law that introduces new members without consent or removes existing members violates Article 19(1)(c). The Act did not merely regulate administration but altered the composition of the society itself, so Article 19(4) could not save it. The whole Act became ineffective because the formation of the new Sammelan was the basis for all other provisions. On the alternative submission, the Court found that if the new Sammelan was separate, Parliament lacked competence because only the old society was declared of national importance, and the transfer of all property would constitute total deprivation not reasonable under Article 19(5). The Court allowed the petition and appeal, declaring the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 void in its entirety.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Association - Article 19(1)(c) - Right to form association includes right to continue association with composition as voluntarily agreed upon; law that alters composition by introducing new members without consent of original members violates the right. The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962, constituted a statutory Sammelan with power to admit new members without original members' approval, thereby changing the society's composition and compelling existing members to associate with imposed members. Held that the Act interfered with the right to form association and was void. (Paras not mentioned) B) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Association - Article 19(4) - Reasonable restrictions on freedom of association cannot justify a law that alters the composition of an association. The Act did not merely regulate administration but changed the society's composition, so Article 19(4) could not save it. Held that the provision reconstituting the society into the Sammelan was void and the whole Act became ineffective. (Paras not mentioned) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Article 19(1)(f) and Article 19(5) - Transfer of all properties and assets of the registered society to a new statutory Sammelan while the society continued to exist constituted total deprivation of property, not reasonable restriction in public interest. The society's governing body, in whom property vested, was deprived without justification. Held that the Act contravened Article 19(1)(f) and was not saved by Article 19(5). (Paras not mentioned) D) Constitutional Law - Legislative Competence - Entry 63, List I, Seventh Schedule - If the Act created a new Sammelan separate from the old society, Parliament lacked competence because only the old society was declared an institution of national importance; the new body corporate was never declared as such. Held that the alternative submission of separate existence did not ensure validity. (Paras not mentioned) E) Statutory Interpretation - Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 - Sections 4(1), 12(1)(a) - The Act reconstituted the society rather than merely regulating its administration; the power of the first Governing Body to make rules for membership under Section 12(1)(a) allowed admission of new members who could outnumber original members, altering the association's character. Held that the whole Act was void as the formation of the new Sammelan was the basis for all other provisions. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 infringed the fundamental right to form associations under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution by reconstituting the registered society into a statutory body with power to admit new members without original members' consent; whether the Act violated the right to hold property under Article 19(1)(f) by transferring society's property to the new Sammelan; whether the Act was saved by Article 19(4) or Article 19(5); and whether Parliament had legislative competence under Entry 63 of List I if the new Sammelan was a separate body not declared as institution of national importance.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and the appeal, declaring the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 void in its entirety. The Court held that the Act's reconstitution of the society into a statutory Sammelan with power to admit new members without original members' consent violated the right to form association under Article 19(1)(c), and that the consequential transfer of all society property to the new Sammelan violated the right to hold property under Article 19(1)(f). The whole Act became ineffective as the formation of the new Sammelan was the basis for all other provisions.
Law Points
- Right to form association includes right to continue association with composition as voluntarily agreed upon
- Law altering composition of society by introducing new members without consent violates Article 19(1)(c) of Constitution
- Article 19(4) cannot validate law altering composition of association
- Total deprivation of property not reasonable restriction under Article 19(5)
- Act reconstituting society void ab initio as basis for all provisions
- Legislative competence under Entry 63 List I requires declaration of institution of national importance for newly constituted body
