Residents Have No Right to Challenge Board’s Powers’: Supreme Court Upholds Auroville Council Formation, Terms Petition ‘Obstruction to Development’ and Imposes ₹50,000 Cost
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India has set aside the decision of the Madras High Court which had invalidated the reconstitution of the Auroville Town Development Council (ATDC) under the Standing Order No. 01/2022 issued by the Auroville Foundation. The Division Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation was fully empowered under the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988, and the Auroville Foundation Rules, 1997, to constitute the committee and that the Residents’ Assembly or its individual members had no statutory right to challenge the Standing Order. The Court observed, “There is no legal or statutory right conferred upon the Residents’ Assembly or upon an individual resident to be part of any committee/council constituted by the Governing Board in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 11(3), 16(1) and 17(e) of the said Act read with Rule 5(1) and 5(2) of the said Rules.”
.
The appellant, Auroville Foundation, challenged the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 15.03.2024, passed in Writ Petition No. 25882 of 2022. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent, Natasha Storey, contesting the legality of the Standing Order No. 01/2022 dated 01.06.2022, under which the ATDC was reconstituted. The Foundation contended that the Standing Order was part of the statutory powers granted to the Governing Board under the Auroville Foundation Act and that the Residents’ Assembly did not possess any overriding powers in this regard.
The Auroville Foundation was established under the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988, and functions under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. The Governing Board is the statutory authority responsible for the general superintendence, direction, and management of the affairs of the Foundation as per Section 11(3) of the Act. Under Section 16 of the Act, the Governing Board is empowered to appoint committees for the efficient discharge of its functions.
The appellant submitted that the ATDC was constituted to implement the approved Auroville Master Plan, prepared in consultation with the Residents’ Assembly under Section 17(e) of the Act. The Master Plan had been approved by the Central Government and notified in the Gazette of India on 28.08.2010. The appellant further submitted that the impugned Standing Order was consistent with the statutory provisions and was within the powers of the Governing Board.
The respondent contested that the Standing Order violated the statutory role of the Residents’ Assembly and lacked proper consultation. The respondent sought that nominees of the Residents’ Assembly should have been included in the ATDC.
The appellant raised a preliminary objection before the Supreme Court, contending that the respondent had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 22895 of 2022, which had been dismissed by the High Court, and that the present petition was a suppression of material facts.
The Supreme Court observed that the doctrine of “clean hands” and non-suppression of material facts applies fully to writ proceedings. The Court recorded, “The party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition.”
Referring to precedent, the Court stated, “As held in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., as a general rule, suppression of material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief.”
The Court noted that the respondent had previously challenged the same Standing Order in Writ Petition No. 22895 of 2022, which was dismissed on 13.10.2022. The Court recorded that “Despite the fact that the said judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 22895 of 2022 was not challenged by the respondent any further, and had become final, the second Writ Petition was filed by her… seeking substantially the same reliefs without disclosing the said material fact.”
On the substantive issue, the Court examined the statutory provisions and observed that the Governing Board’s powers under Sections 11(3), 16, and 17(e) of the Auroville Foundation Act were clear and unrestricted in this context. The Court recorded, “From the conjoint reading of the provisions of the A.F. Act and the said Rules, there remains no shadow of doubt that the Governing Board is vested with all the powers and is empowered to discharge all the functions as may be exercised or discharged by the Foundation.”
The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the Standing Order required consent from the Residents’ Assembly. The Court recorded, “Neither the said A.F. Act nor the said Rules contemplate or confer any right upon the Residents’ Assembly, much less upon an individual resident of Auroville to be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing Board.”
The Court also observed that the respondent’s challenge was part of a pattern of repeated litigation. The Court recorded, “A small group of disgruntled and discontented residents kept on filing petitions one after the other dragging the Appellant-Foundation into unnecessary litigations.”
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and upheld the Standing Order issued by the Governing Board. The Court recorded, “The impugned order being highly erroneous deserves to be set aside, and is hereby set aside.”
Additionally, the Court directed that, “the Appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the respondent before the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee within two weeks from today.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: R. Venkatramani, Senior Advocate
For the Respondent: M.V. Swaroop, Advocate
Case Title: The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 348
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 13651 of 2024
Bench: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
[Read/Download order]
