Bombay High Court Upholds Charity Commissioner’s Power to Appoint Interim Committee for Public Trust Administration

April 28, 2026 : The Bombay High Court has upheld the authority of the Charity Commissioner to constitute interim management arrangements for a public trust, affirming that such intervention is legally permissible to ensure proper administration. Justice Farhan P. Dubash declined to interfere with orders appointing an interim committee to manage the Asiatic Society of Mumbai.

The writ petitions challenged orders dated March 13, 2026, by which the Charity Commissioner constituted an interim committee comprising a “fit person” along with certain members of the Managing Committee to oversee day-to-day affairs. A sub-committee was also appointed to prepare a voters’ list and conduct elections within a fixed timeline.

The petitioners argued that the Charity Commissioner lacked authority to issue such directions and alleged violation of principles of natural justice, contending that no adequate opportunity of hearing had been provided and that the electoral process had been improperly interfered with.

Rejecting these contentions, the Court found that multiple hearings had been conducted on March 5, 9, 11, and 12, 2026, with office bearers present and represented by counsel. Submissions and affidavits were duly considered, and therefore, no breach of natural justice was made out.

On merits, the Court held that the Managing Committee had no authority to continue beyond its tenure, which expired in September 2025, especially after rejection of the change report relating to the 2023 elections. Despite this, the Committee continued to take substantive decisions, including those concerning membership and preparation of the voters’ list, which the Court found impermissible.

The Court also noted irregularities in the functioning of the Scrutinising Committee, which had continued beyond its tenure and recommended new memberships that were included in the voters’ list without proper approval. These discrepancies, along with findings from the Inspector’s report, justified the Charity Commissioner’s intervention.

Referring to the statutory scheme under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, the Court held that the Charity Commissioner is empowered, including under Section 47, to issue necessary directions and put interim arrangements in place to ensure proper administration of a trust.

Finding that the impugned orders were reasoned, based on material on record, and aimed at ensuring fair elections and proper governance, the Court held that no case of arbitrariness or illegality was made out. Accordingly, both writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim arrangement was permitted to continue.