Supreme Court Restores Challenge to Gandhi Ashram Redevelopment Plan: Tushar Arun Gandhi vs. State of Gujarat (2022) INSC 167 (01 April 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 01 April 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 167

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Surya Kant, J. The judgment was authored by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Can a High Court dismiss a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based solely on the State’s assurance, without a thorough examination of the facts and arguments? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the redevelopment of the Gandhi Ashram. The Court found that the High Court should have allowed a full hearing of the matter after the pleadings were completed.

The core issue revolves around a challenge to a Government Resolution by the State of Gujarat concerning the development of the Gandhi Ashram Memorial. The petitioner argued that the redevelopment should be overseen by the existing trusts managing the Ashram, while the State Government sought to implement a broader development plan through newly constituted councils.

Case Background

The appellant, Tushar Arun Gandhi, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Gujarat High Court challenging a Government Resolution dated 5 March 2021. This resolution concerned the redevelopment of the Gandhi Ashram Memorial (Sabarmati Ashram). The appellant contended that the existing trusts managing the Ashram should be primarily responsible for the redevelopment, with funding from the Central and State Governments. He argued that the newly formed Governing and Executive Councils, established by the Government Resolution, should not take over the redevelopment process.

The appellant sought a direction that the redevelopment work be “spearheaded by the Trusts which presently run the Ashram” under the auspices of the second respondent, with funding from the Central and State Governments. The appellant’s main concern was that the existing structure and management of the Ashram should not be disturbed by the proposed redevelopment.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Gujarat High Court, without allowing the pleadings to be completed and without calling for a comprehensive affidavit from the State of Gujarat, dismissed the PIL. The High Court relied on the submission and undertaking of the Advocate General for the State of Gujarat that the existing one-acre area of the Gandhi Ashram would not be disturbed, and all efforts would be made for its improvement by the Governing Council. The High Court also noted that the Government Resolution was aimed at promoting the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and that the Ashram’s representative was part of the Governing Council.

The High Court stated that any apprehension about the existing ashram being altered could be addressed in the Governing Council by the representative of the Sabarmati Ashram Preservation Memorial Trust. The High Court concluded that the development work would enhance the Ashram’s importance and make it an international tourist destination.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should have allowed the State of Gujarat to file a comprehensive affidavit and should have decided on the issues raised in the petition after the pleadings were completed. The Solicitor General also agreed to restore the petition back to the High Court for a full hearing.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which grants High Courts the power to issue certain writs. The appellant invoked this provision to challenge the Government Resolution, arguing that it infringed upon the rights and management of the existing trusts.

The Supreme Court’s intervention was based on the principle that High Courts should not summarily dismiss PILs without allowing a full hearing, particularly when significant issues of public interest are raised.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the redevelopment of the Gandhi Ashram should be managed by the existing trusts, with funding from the Central and State Governments.

• The appellant contended that the Government Resolution, which constituted the Governing and Executive Councils, would undermine the existing management and ethos of the Ashram.

• The appellant sought a direction that the redevelopment work be “spearheaded by the Trusts which presently run the Ashram” under the auspices of the second respondent.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State of Gujarat, through the Advocate General, submitted that the existing Gandhi Ashram on Sabarmati Riverfront (one acre) would not be disturbed and would be maintained.

• The State argued that the redevelopment project was aimed at promoting and educating people about the philosophy, values, and teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.

• The State assured that the project would not disturb the existing structures of the Ashram and that the Governing Council would include a representative of the Sabarmati Ashram Preservation Memorial Trust.

Innovation of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in seeking to preserve the existing management structure of the Ashram, emphasizing the importance of the trusts in maintaining the Ashram’s ethos and legacy.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but rather focused on the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s decision. The primary issue was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the PIL without allowing the State to file a detailed response and without a full hearing.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The primary focus was on the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s decision rather than on substantive legal principles. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing a full hearing when significant public interest issues are raised.

The Court considered Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Courts to issue writs.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s judgment. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have allowed the pleadings to be completed and should have provided the State with an opportunity to file a comprehensive affidavit before dismissing the PIL.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that matters of public interest, such as the redevelopment of the Gandhi Ashram, require a thorough examination and cannot be summarily dismissed based on mere assurances.

The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on ensuring that the High Court followed proper procedure. The decision was based on the principle that all parties should be given a fair opportunity to present their case, especially in matters of public interest.

The Court emphasized the need for the High Court to allow the State to file a comprehensive affidavit and to decide on the issues raised in the petition after the pleadings were completed.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing that the High Court should have allowed a full hearing.

The Court’s decision has implications for future cases, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness in PILs. The Court’s emphasis on the need for a full hearing ensures that matters of public interest are not dismissed summarily.

The Court did not introduce any new legal doctrines or principles but reinforced the existing principles of procedural fairness and the importance of a full hearing in public interest litigation.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not dismiss Public Interest Litigations (PILs) summarily based on the State’s undertaking without allowing a full hearing.

• The State should be given an opportunity to file a comprehensive affidavit before a decision is made on a PIL.

• Matters of public interest require a thorough examination and cannot be dismissed without a proper hearing.

• The decision reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in PILs and ensures that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to restore the writ petition to its file and to decide the matter after allowing the pleadings to be completed and hearing the parties.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that High Courts should not dismiss Public Interest Litigations (PILs) summarily based on the State’s undertaking without allowing a full hearing, and that the State should be given an opportunity to file a comprehensive affidavit before a decision is made on a PIL.

This decision reinforces the existing principles of procedural fairness and the importance of a full hearing in public interest litigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s judgment. The case was remanded back to the High Court for a full hearing, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and a thorough examination of public interest matters. The Court’s decision ensures that the issues raised by the appellant regarding the redevelopment of the Gandhi Ashram will be properly addressed after the pleadings are completed and all parties are heard.