The Madras High Court has ordered that no name should be added or removed from the register of residents of Auroville, a cultural township in Puducherry, until furthers orders to be passed by it on writ petitions that had questioned the power to do so having been taken away from the Residents’ Assembly and conferred on a newly constituted Admissions and Terminations Scrutinizing Committee (ATSC).
Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the interim order after being prima facie satisfied that the Residents’ Assembly had been totally ignored under the Auroville Foundation (Admission and Termination of Person in the Register of Residents) Regulations, 2023 and such disregard amounts to violation of Section 19 of the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988.
“The subordinate legislation (2023 Regulations) may supplement the statute; however, cannot supplant it. Prima facie, the Regulations under challenge erode upon the power of the Residents’ Assembly to allow admissions or cause the termination of persons in the register,” the Bench said and added that the Governing Board could not take away the statutory power of the Residents Assembly through the Regulations.
Working Committee of the Residents’ Assembly of Auroville and an individual named Rakhee Kane had filed the writ petitions challenging the 2023 Regulations. Representing the working committee, Senior Counsel Arvind P. Datar told the court that the Auroville Foundation consisted of three major authorities — the Governing Board, the Residents’ Assembly and the Auroville International Advisory Council.
Section 19 of the 1988 Act empowers the Residents’ Assembly to include or delete the names from the register of residents in accordance with the regulations to be made by the Governing Board under Section 32 of the Act. Accordingly, certain regulations were formulated in 2020. However, the 2023 regulations superseded the 2020 regulations and ended up making the Residents Assembly powerless, he said.
The court was informed that Regulation number 9 provides for constitution of the ATSC consisting of five members of whom only two shall be residents nominated by the Governing Board on a call for nomination from the Residents Assembly and that the rest shall be non-resident members nominated by the chairperson of the Governing Board which shall also assign a chair from among the five members.
Further, Regulation 4 states that any newcomer to Auroville could make an application for including his/her name in the register of residents, after 11 months of stay, and such application would be dealt with by the ATSC, Mr. Datar pointed out and urged the court to declare the 2023 Regulations as ultra vires of the 1988 Act since they were specifically inconsistent with Section 19 of the Act.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan told the court that the writ petitions suffered from a primary defect of not having added the Centre as a respondent though the latter had approved the 2023 Regulations framed by the Governing Board. He also said, the Working Committee of the Residents’ Assembly consists of other persons than the one who had filed the writ petition.
Referring to a writ of quo warranto pending in the High Court since 2023 against the members of the working committee, the ASG said, the person who had filed the writ petition, by claiming to be representing the Working Committee, was under cloud. He argued that Section 19 must be read along with Section 11 which empowers the Governing Board to have general superintendence over the foundation.
Mr. Sundaresan further contended that the Governing Board had unfettered powers to frame regulations under Section 32 of the Act and referred to Section 32(2)(h) which specifically empowers the Governing Board to frame regulations with respect to admission or termination of persons in the register of residents. Stating that such power had been exercised validly, he said, it would be binding on all other authorities.
He urged the court to grant him more time to argue before taking up the writ petitions for final hearing. The judges accepted his request and adjourned the hearing to March 25 after passing an interim order that no name should be added or deleted from the register of residents until the court passes further orders on the present writ petitions.
