Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

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 ground 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.

In the course of the proceedings, one more respondent was impleaded in the matter who opposed the petitioner's plea. He was also a candidate for the post of secretary of the society.

However, the court noted that both— the petitioner and the newly impleaded respondent, had been convicted of murder in different cases and they did not disclose this fact before the court in the first instance. 

"These facts came to light when the respective adversaries pointed out their convictions," court highlighted. 

Further, 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 which 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.

Court opined that the phrase "moral turpitude" is of a wide ambit. However, to reach a conclusion as to whether in light of the facts of the matter at hand, the offence of murder will be covered under the term "moral turpitude" as given in Section 16A of the Societies Registration Act,1860, court referred 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:

"...it is evident that every conviction in a criminal offence may not amount to 'moral turpitude'. 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," court said. 

Further, for the petitioner and newly impleaded respondent's failure to disclose their antecedents before the court in the first instance, court imposed cost of Rs. 1,00,000 each. 

Moreover, 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.

Case Title: C/M Shiksha Prasar Samiti And Another v. State of UP and 2 Others