Full Judgment Text
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No 2660 of 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No 2181 of 2022)
Tushar Arun Gandhi .... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Gujarat and Ors ....Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
1 Leave granted.
2 The appellant instituted a petition before the Gujarat High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution in the form of a Public Interest Litigation to challenge a
Government Resolution dated 5 March 2021 issued by the Government of
Gujarat. The Government Resolution constitutes a Governing Council and an
Executive Council for the development of the Gandhi Ashram Memorial
(popularly known as the Sabarmati Ashram)- a charitable trust established to
conserve the writings, photos and multimedia material of Mahatma Gandhi and
Kasturba Gandhi, its precinct, and surrounding areas. Besides the challenge to
the Government Resolution, the appellant has sought a direction that the work of
redevelopment at the Ashram should be “spearheaded by the Trusts which
Signature Not Verified
presently run the Ashram” under the auspices of the second respondent, while
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2022.04.05
15:33:16 IST
Reason:
allowing for funding by the Central and State Governments. According to the
appellant, the work of redevelopment ought to remain within the domain of the
2
second to seventh respondents.
3 By a judgment dated 25 November 2021, a Division Bench of the High Court of
Gujarat, disposed of the petition holding that the petition under Article 226 “is
not required to be entertained” in view of the submission of and undertaking
furnished by the Advocate General for the State of Gujarat. The undertaking
which has been referred to in the concluding paragraph of the judgment of the
High Court and the submission are recorded in paragraph 7 of the impugned
judgment which is extracted below:
“[7] The State which is on advance notice by virtue of the
advance copy having been served on the office of learned
Advocate General, is represented by the learned
Advocate General and when the matter is taken up for
consideration, learned Advocate General has appeared
and a submission has been made by the learned
Advocate General to the effect that existing Gandhi
Ashram on Sabarmati Riverfront, which is an area of one
acre would not be disturbed, or, in other words, it would
be maintained as it is and all efforts would be made even
for the improvement of the said Ashram, if decided by the
Governing Council. He would also submit that for
promoting and educating the people in the philosophy,
values and teachings of Gandhiji, who is the Father of the
Nation, this mammoth project has been taken up and he
states that State would not undertake any activity in the
said one acre of the area where the Gandhi Ashram is
located that would disturb the existing structures, but the
project envisaged under the impugned order would be
put into action for spreading the teachings of Gandhian
philosophy of Gandhi at all levels. His submission and
undertaking is placed on record.”
The High Court, without allowing pleadings to be completed,
dismissed the Writ petition observing that the Government Order
dated 05.03.2021 would preserve the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi:
“[8] In this background, we have perused the impugned order
dated 05.03.2021 which would indicate that to preserve
the ethos and teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and the part
taken in the freedom struggle and to promote and
educate the great philosophy, values and teachings of
Mahatma Gandhi, the Government of Gujarat has
envisioned and has come up with the project of
3
comprehensive development of Gandhi Ashram Memorial
and in this direction, Government Resolution dated
05.03.2021 was made under which a Governing Council
and an Executive Council have been constituted which
comprises of several representatives including the
representative of Sabarmati Ashram Preservation
Memorial Trust, that is the third respondent herein.
Hence, any apprehension of the said Ashram about the
existing ashram being altered can be espoused in the
rd
Governing Council by the representative of 3
respondent. In other words, apprehension expressed by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
decisions would be taken by the Governing Council or
Executive Council unilaterally to the detriment to the
Ashram stands allayed. In fact, we notice that the role
and responsibilities of the Governing Council has also
been fixed under the Government resolution dated
05.03.2021. The authorities required to implement the
project have also been specified under the said
Government resolution which would clearly indicate that
neither the Ashram not the existing Sabarmati Ashram
not its value and importance is being denuded or
reduced. But, on the other hand, by virtue of the said
development work which is being taken, the existing
Ashram would receive attention at all levels and it would
not only be a source of inspiration to one and all across
the Globe, but it would also be an international tourist
destination which, in the process, would earn name and
fame at the national as well and international level.
[…]
[10] In that view of the matter, we are of the considered
view that this Writ Petition is not required to be
entertained and by placing on record the submission and
undertaking given by the learned Advocate general on
record, we dispose of this Writ Petition. Hence, the
question of issuing of notice to any of the respondents
would not arise.”
4 Ms Indira Jaising, Senior Counsel, appears on behalf of the appellant. Mr Tushar
Mehta, Solicitor General, appears on behalf of the first respondent, on caveat.
5 The High Court did not call for an affidavit in reply from the State of Gujarat in
response to the petition, before it proceeded to dispose of the writ petition. It
would have been appropriate for the High Court to decide upon the issues which
are raised in the petition after furnishing to the State of Gujarat an opportunity
4
of filing a comprehensive affidavit dealing with various facets of the matter. The
High Court having disposed of the petition summarily without calling for a reply
from the State of Gujarat, we were of the prima facie view that the matter would
require to be remanded to the High Court. The Solicitor General has fairly
consented to the petition being restored back to the file of the High Court to
follow the above course of action.
6 This Court has not entered into the merits of the issues which are sought to be
raised by the appellant before the High Court or, for that matter, expressed an
opinion on such aspects of the matter which the State of Gujarat or the other
respondents would seek to place before the High Court. The High Court would
form a fresh view after allowing the pleadings to be completed and hearing the
parties. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.
7 Both the Senior Counsel for the appellant and the Solicitor General have joined
in stating that they would request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the
proceedings.
8 For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court dated 25 November 2021. The writ petition is
restored to the file of the High Court. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.
[Surya Kant]
New Delhi;
April 01, 2022
-S-
5
ITEM NO.45 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).2181/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-11-2021
in WPPIL No. 137/2021 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad)
TUSHAR ARUN GANDHI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.20390/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
Date : 01-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mihir Desai, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR
Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv.
Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv.
Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG
Mr. Satyam Chhaya, Adv .
Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv .
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 Leave granted.
2 The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
3 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)