TUSHAR ARUN GANDHI versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS on 1 April 2022

[2022] 13 S.C.R. 911

TUSHAR ARUN GANDHI

v.

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

(Civil Appeal No. 2660 of 2022)

April 01, 2022

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDSURYA KANT, JJ.]

Public Interest Litigation – Sabarmati Ashram –Redevelopment of – The Government of Gujarat issued a Resolutionwhich constituted Governing Council and an Executive Council forthe development of the Gandhi Ashram Memorial (SabarmatiAshram) – The appellant filed a petition before the High Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution in the form of a Public Interest Litigationchallenging the Government Resolution – The appellant has alsosought a direction that the work of redevelopment at the Ashramshould be “spearheaded by the Trusts which presently run theAshram” – Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the petitionholding that the petition u/Art. 226 is not required to be entertainedin view of the undertaking furnished by the Advocate General forthe State – On appeal, held: The High Court did not call for anaffidavit in reply from the State of Gujarat in response to the petition,before it proceeded to dispose of the writ petition – It would havebeen appropriate for the High Court to decide upon the issues whichare raised in the petition after furnishing to the State of Gujarat anopportunity – Prima facie, the matter is required to be remanded tothe High Court – The Court has not entered into the merits of theissues which are sought to be raised by the appellant before theHigh Court – The High Court would form a fresh view after allowingthe pleadings to be completed and hearing the parties – Therefore,appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court isset aside – Writ petition restored to the file of the High Court.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2660of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2021 of the High Courtof Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Writ Petition (PIL) No.137 of 2021.

Ms. Indira Jaising, Mihir Desai, Sr. Advs., Ms. Aparna Bhat, ParasNath Singh, Ms. Karishma Maria, Mihir Joshi, Advs. for the Appellant.

911

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

ATushar Mehta, SG, Satyam Chhaya, Ms. Aastha Mehta, Ms.Deepanwita Priyanka, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.B1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant instituted a petition before the Gujarat High Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution in the form of a Public InterestLitigation to challenge a Government Resolution dated 5 March 2021issued by the Government of Gujarat. The Government ResolutionCconstitutes a Governing Council and an Executive Council for thedevelopment of the Gandhi Ashram Memorial (popularly known as theSabarmati Ashram)- a charitable trust established to conserve thewritings, photos and multimedia material of Mahatma Gandhi andKasturba Gandhi, its precinct, and surrounding areas. Besides thechallenge to the Government Resolution, the appellant has sought aDdirection that the work of redevelopment at the Ashram should be“spearheaded by the Trusts which presently run the Ashram” under theauspices of the second respondent, while allowing for funding by theCentral and State Governments. According to the appellant, the work ofredevelopment ought to remain within the domain of the second to seventhErespondents.

3 By a judgment dated 25 November 2021, a Division Bench ofthe High Court of Gujarat, disposed of the petition holding that the petitionunder Article 226 “is not required to be entertained” in view of thesubmission of and undertaking furnished by the Advocate General forFthe State of Gujarat. The undertaking which has been referred to in theconcluding paragraph of the judgment of the High Court and thesubmission are recorded in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment whichis extracted below:

“[7] The State which is on advance notice by virtue of the advancecopy having been served on the office of learned AdvocateGGeneral, is represented by the learned Advocate General and whenthe matter is taken up for consideration, learned Advocate Generalhas appeared and a submission has been made by the learnedAdvocate General to the effect that existing Gandhi Ashram onSabarmati Riverfront, which is an area of one acre would not beHdisturbed, or, in other words, it would be maintained as it is and all TUSHAR ARUN GANDHI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

efforts would be made even for the improvement of the saidAshram, if decided by the Governing Council. He would also submitthat 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 Statewould not undertake any activity in the said one acre of the areawhere the Gandhi Ashram is located that would disturb the existingstructures, but the project envisaged under the impugned orderwould be put into action for spreading the teachings of Gandhianphilosophy of Gandhi at all levels. His submission and undertakingis placed on record.”

The High Court, without allowing pleadings to be completed,dismissed the Writ petition observing that the Government Order dated05.03.2021 would preserve the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi:

“[8] In this background, we have perused the impugned orderdated 05.03.2021 which would indicate that to preserve the ethosand teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and the part taken in the freedomstruggle and to promote and educate the great philosophy, valuesand teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, the Government of Gujarathas envisioned and has come up with the project of comprehensivedevelopment of Gandhi Ashram Memorial and in this direction,Government Resolution dated 05.03.2021 was made under whicha Governing Council and an Executive Council have beenconstituted which comprises of several representatives includingthe representative of Sabarmati Ashram Preservation MemorialTrust, that is the third respondent herein. Hence, any apprehensionof the said Ashram about the existing ashram being altered canbe espoused in the Governing Council by the representative of 3[rd]respondent. In other words, apprehension expressed by the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner that the decisions would betaken by the Governing Council or Executive Council unilaterallyto the detriment to the Ashram stands allayed. In fact, we noticethat the role and responsibilities of the Governing Council has alsobeen fixed under the Government resolution dated 05.03.2021.The authorities required to implement the project have also beenspecified under the said Government resolution which would clearlyindicate that neither the Ashram not the existing Sabarmati Ashramnot its value and importance is being denuded or reduced. But, on AB

C

D

EF

G

H

the other hand, by virtue of the said development work which isbeing taken, the existing Ashram would receive attention at alllevels and it would not only be a source of inspiration to one andall across the Globe, but it would also be an international touristdestination which, in the process, would earn name and fame atthe national as well and international level.

A

B

[…]

[10] In that view of the matter, we are of the considered viewthat this Writ Petition is not required to be entertained and byplacing on record the submission and undertaking given by theClearned Advocate general on record, we dispose of this WritPetition. Hence, the question of issuing of notice to any of therespondents would not arise.”

4. Ms Indira Jaising, Senior Counsel, appears on behalf of theappellant. Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, appears on behalf of theDfirst respondent, on caveat.

5. The High Court did not call for an affidavit in reply from theState of Gujarat in response to the petition, before it proceeded to disposeof the writ petition.It would have been appropriate for the High Court todecide upon the issues which are raised in the petition after furnishing toEthe State of Gujarat an opportunity of filing a comprehensive affidavitdealing with various facets of the matter. The High Court having disposedof the petition summarily without calling for a reply from the State ofGujarat, we were of the prima facie view that the matter would requireto be remanded to the High Court. The Solicitor General has fairlyconsented to the petition being restored back to the file of the HighFCourt to follow the above course of action.

6 This Court has not entered into the merits of the issues whichare sought to be raised by the appellant before the High Court or, forthat matter, expressed an opinion on such aspects of the matter whichthe State of Gujarat or the other respondents would seek to place beforeGthe High Court. The High Court would form a fresh view after allowingthe pleadings to be completed and hearing the parties. All the rights andcontentions of the parties are kept open.

7. Both the Senior Counsel for the appellant and the SolicitorGeneral have joined in stating that they would request the High Court toHexpeditiously dispose of the proceedings.

TUSHAR ARUN GANDHI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

8. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside theimpugned judgment of the High Court dated 25 November 2021. Thewrit petition is restored to the file of the High Court. Pending applications,if any, stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H