Summary and Analysis of Operation ASHA v. Shelly Batra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10048 of 2025)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Operation ASHA v. Shelly Batra & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Core Issue: Whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, can be treated as a "public trust" or "constructive trust" under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to permit a suit for breach of trust.

2. Relevant Laws & Sections

1. Section 92, CPC:
   Governs suits for "breach of express or constructive trust" created for public charitable/religious purposes.
   Requires:
   (i) A public-purpose trust (charitable/religious);
   (ii) Breach of trust or need for court’s direction;
   (iii) Reliefs falling under Section 92(1) (e.g., removal of trustees, settling a scheme).
   Suit must be filed by the Advocate-General or two persons "having an interest in the trust" with court’s leave.

2. Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Section 5):
   Property of a registered society vests in its governing body (not trustees) unless expressly vested in separate trustees.
   Societies are not juristic persons (cannot own property).

3. Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (Section 3):
   Defines "trust" as an obligation tied to property ownership for another’s benefit.
   Distinguishes between express trusts (created intentionally) and constructive trusts (imposed by equity to prevent injustice).

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Operation ASHA (NGO registered as a society).
  Respondents: Dr. Shelly Batra (co-founder, removed as President) & Usha Gupta (her mother, society member).

• Allegations: Financial mismanagement, fund misappropriation, and illegal termination by society’s governing body.

• Relief Sought: Removal of trustees, rendition of accounts, and settling a management scheme.

• Lower Courts:
  Delhi High Court (Single Judge): Granted leave for a Section 92 CPC suit, treating the society as a "constructive trust."
  Division Bench: Upheld the order.

• Supreme Court: Reversed the High Court, dismissing the suit under Section 92 CPC.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Core Question

Can a society (like Operation ASHA) be deemed a "constructive trust" under Section 92 CPC?

B. Supreme Court’s Analysis

(i) Society ≠ Trust

• Societies Registration Act (Section 5): Society’s property vests in its governing body, not trustees.

• Key Precedents:
  Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic College v. State of Delhi: Societies lack juristic personality; property vests in governing body.
  Illachi Devi v. Jain Society: Societies cannot own property.

• Conclusion: Merely having charitable aims does not convert a society into a trust.

(ii) "Constructive Trust" Not Established

• Definition: A constructive trust arises by operation of law to prevent unjust enrichment (e.g., if a fiduciary profits from their position).

• Operation ASHA’s Case:
  No evidence of property being "entrusted" to trustees.
  Governing body held property per Section 5 of Societies Act—not as trustees.
  Donations/grants vested in society’s governing body, not under a trust.

• Precedents:
  Abhaya v. J.A. Raheem: Societies are not trusts unless proven otherwise.
  S.R. Bahuguna v. All India Women’s Conference: Governing body ≠ trustees.

(iii) Conditions of Section 92 CPC Not Met

1. No Public Trust: Society ≠ trust (as explained above).

2. Reliefs Sought Were Personal:
   Dr. Batra’s reinstatement as President was a private grievance, not a relief under Section 92(1).

3. Plaintiffs Lacked "Interest in Trust":
   Usha Gupta (Respondent 2) did not sign the plaint or file an affidavit, violating CPC procedural mandates.

C. Final Ruling

• Section 92 CPC Inapplicable: Societies are governed by the Societies Registration Act, not trust law.

• Suit Not Maintainable: Respondents should have pursued remedies under the Societies Act (e.g., internal disputes mechanism).

• High Court Order Set Aside: Leave granted under Section 92 CPC was revoked; suit dismissed.

Key Takeaway

The Supreme Court clarified that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is not a "trust" under Section 92 CPC. To sue for mismanagement, plaintiffs must prove a separately created trust over the society’s property. Absent this, remedies lie under the society’s internal bylaws or the Societies Act—not Section 92 CPC.