Shail Samachar Newspaper

संघ का पजींकरण क्यों नहीं है
जब संघ बिना पंजीकरण के काम कर सकता है तो दूसरी संस्थाऐं क्यों नहीं
किन्नौर में मन्त्री विरेन्द्र कंवर के लगे गो बैक के नारे
शिमला/शैल। जब विधानसभा सदन में आरएसएस को लेकर हुई टिप्पणी का विवाद अध्यक्ष को हटाने की मांग तक पहुंच जाये तो स्वभाविक है कि प्रदेश की आम जनता में संघ को लेकर कुछ सवाल उठेंगे ही। क्योंकि जनता विधानसभा से बड़ा मंच और बड़ा सदन है। विधानसभा में यह विवाद इसलिये बढ़ा क्योंकि शायद अध्यक्ष ने अपने को संघ की विचारधारा से जुड़ा हुआ बताया और इसी से विप़क्ष ने उनकी निष्पक्षता पर सवाल उठा दिया। भाजपा आरएसएस की राजनीतिक ईकाई है यह सब जानते हैं। भाजपा के संगठन मन्त्री के पद पर हमेशा संघ का ही प्रतिनिधि रहता है जो बहुत मामलों में अध्यक्ष पर भी भारी पड़ता है। आरएसएस के नाम से कई कार्यक्रम आयोजित होते रहते हैं। शान्ता कुमार जब प्रदेश के मुख्यमन्त्री थे तब शिमला के रिज मैदान पर संघ को ही अपना कार्यक्रम आयोजित करने की अनुमति मिली थी और इस आयोजन में पूरा मन्त्रीमण्डल तथा कई सरकारी अधिकारी /कर्मचारी स्वयं सेवक की वेषभूषा में इसमें शामिल हुए थे। इन संद्धर्भो से भाजपा सरकारों में संघ के रूतबे का पता चल जाता है।
कानून के अनुसार कोई भी राजनीतिक, सामाजिक, आर्थिक संगठन एनजीओ और कंपनी आदि बिना पंजीकरण के कार्य नहीं कर सकता है यह भी हर व्यक्ति जानता है। इन सबको पंजीकरण अधिकारी के पास नियमित रूप से अपना ऑडिट करवाना होता है और ऐसा न करवाने पर इनका पंजीकरण रद्द कर दिया जाता है जो संस्था पंजीकृत नहीं होती है उसकी गतिविधियों को गैर कानूनी करार देकर अपराध माना जाता है। संघ परिवार के विस्तार और प्रभाव के साये में आरएसएस के पंजीकरण को लेकर कभी कोई सवाल नहीं उठा। सब यही जानते हैं कि संघ की स्थापना 1925 में अंग्रेजी शासन के दौरान हुई थी और यह एक सांस्कृतिक संगठन है। इसके गठन में डा. हैठगेवार, वी एस मुंजे तथा विनायक दामोदर सावरकर की महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका रही है। यह लोग हिटलर और मुसोलिनि से किस कदर प्रभावित रहे हैं यह मूंजे की अपनी डायरी से पता चल जाता है। इस परिप्रेक्ष में आरएसएस के पंजीकरण को लेकर जिज्ञासा होना और भी स्वभाविक हो जाता है। केन्द्र में जब मोदी के नेतृत्व में 2014 में भाजपा की सरकार बनी तब से कुछ लोगों ने पंजीकरण के सवाल पर पड़ताल करना शुरू की। इस पड़ताल के परिणामस्वरूप 28 अगस्त 2017 को नागपुर के एक पूर्व नगर सेवक जनार्दन मून ने महाराष्ट्र के धर्मादाय आयुक्त कार्यालय में आनलॉइन और मैनुअल दोनां प्रकार से राष्ट्रीय स्वयं सेवक संघ नाम से सामाजिक संगठन के रजिस्ट्रेशन का आवदेन किया। इससे पहले उन्होने मुख्यमन्त्री देवेन्द्र फडणवीस को भी पत्र लिखकर ऐसा ही अग्रह किया था। जिसे मुख्यमन्त्री ने नागपुर स्थित सहायक धर्मादाय आयुक्त के कार्यालय को भेज दिया था। इस आवेदन पर जब कारवाई हुई तब यवतमाल के एक वकील राजेन्द्र गुंडलवार ने यह कह कर आपत्ति जताई कि इस नाम से पहले ही एक संस्था पंजीकृत है। परन्तु वह इसका साक्ष्य नहीं दे पाये। लेकिन सहायक आयुक्त ने इस आवेदन को यह कहकर खारिज कर दिया कि पंजीकरण अधिनिमय के अनुसार जिस भी नाम के साथ राष्ट्रीय शब्द जुड़ा होगा उसके पंजीकरण पर प्रतिबन्ध है।
सहायक आयुक्त के फैसले को मून ने महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय के नागपुर बैंच में चुनौती दी। जिसे न्यायमूर्ति रवि देश पांडे और विनय जोशी की खण्ड पीठ ने 21 जनवरी 2019 को खारिज कर दिया और यह कहा कि एक्ट में राष्ट्रीय शब्द जुड़े होने से पंजीकरण का प्रावधान नहीं है। उच्च न्यायालय में भी 1925 में आरएसएस के पंजीकृत होने की बात कही गयी है परन्तु यहां भी इसका कोई साक्ष्य नहीं दिया गया है। इसलिये खण्डपीठ ने एक्ट में राष्ट्रीय शब्द होने के आधार पर ही फैसला दिया है और पूर्व पंजीकरण पर कोई टिप्पणी नहीं की है। संघ के पंजीकरण और अन्य मुद्दों पर भाजपा नेता डा. स्वामी बहुत बार बहुत गंभीर सवाल उठा चुके हैं जिनके जवाब नहीं आये हैं। इस फैसले के बाद जनार्दन मून अपने संगठन आरएसएस के नाम से सारी गतिविधियों को यह कहकर अंजाम दे रहे हैं कि यदि मोहन भागवत का आरएसएस बिना पंजीकरण के कार्य कर सकता है तो उनका क्यों नहीं। संभव है कि बहुत सारे संघ से जुड़े लोगों को भी यह जानकारी न हो कि संघ पंजीकृत संस्था नहीं है। आज संघ का सरकार पर जिस तरह का प्रभाव है उसके परिदृश्य में इस पर एक सार्वजनिक बहस होनी चाहिये कि संघ पंजीकृत क्यों नही है। नागपुर बैंच का फैसला पाठकों के सामने रखा जा रहा है ताकि वह इस पर अपनी राय बना सके। इस समय जिस संद्धर्भ में यह मुद्दा विधानसभ पटल पर उभर कर जनता तक पहुंच चुका है उसकी झलक किन्नौर ने ग्रामीण विकास मन्त्री विरेन्द्र सिंह कंवर के विराध मे लगे नारों से सामने आ गयी है। अब इस मुद्दे पर जनता का ध्यान आकर्षित होना स्वभाविक हो गया है। इसमें जब पहला सवाल यह उठेगा कि संघ का पजींकरण क्यो नहीं है। यदि संघ बिना पजींकरण के सामाजिक कार्यो को अंजाम दे सकता है तो दूसरी संस्थाएं ऐसा क्यों नहीं कर सकती। अब संघ को लेकर आये दिन सवाल उठने शुरू हो जायेंगे जो आज तक किसी भी मंच पर नहीं उठे हैं।

                                                   यह है उच्च न्यायालय का फैसला

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6700 OF 2017
1. Janardan s/o Gulabrao Moon, Aged about 66 years, Occupation : Social Worker, R/o 791, Nagsen Van, Binaki Road, Nagpur-440017.
... Petitioner/
Original Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
2. The Assistant Registrar of Societies, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001.
*3. Adv.(Dr.) Rajendra s/o Chintaman Gundalwar, Aged about 47 years, Occupation - Social Worker, R/o C/o Dr. Hedgewar Centre, Bezalwar Niwas, Hospital Ward, Near Jatpura Gate, Chandrapur, District Chandrapur-442410.
[* Writ Petition is dismissed in default against Respondent No.3 vide Registrar (Judicial)'s
order dated 15-6-2018]
4. Deepak s/o Vasantrao Barad,, Aged 42 years, Occupation - Service, R/o Golibar Chowk, Pachpaoli, Nagpur.
5. Prashant s/o Kamlakar Bopardikar, Aged - Major, Occupation - Private, R/o 116, Abhyankar Nagar, Nagpur.
6. Mohnish s/o Jivanlal Jabalpure (Yadav), Aged - Major, R/o In front of Chitra Talkies, Mahal, Nagpur.
...Respondents
Shri A.R. Ingole, Advocate for Petitioner (Original Applicant).
Shri Anand Deshpande, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri S.D. Abhyankar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT :
15th JANUARY, 2019
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT :
21st JANUARY, 2019
JUDGMENT (PER : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) :
1. Rule. The learned counsels appearing for the parties waive service of notice. The petition is being finally disposed of.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 4-10-2017 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Societies, wp6700.17.odt Nagpur, rejecting Application No.615 of 2017 for grant of permission to register a charitable society under the name and style of "Rashtriya Swayansevak Sangh" along with the Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations and other relevant documents enclosed with it. The application was opposed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6, who were the objectors, claiming that the society under the name and style of "Rashtriya Swayansevak Sangh" has already been registered at Chandrapur vide Registration No.MH-08/D0018394 by the Indian Government since 1925 and they are the members of such society. According to the objectors, the petitioner cannot claim registration of the society under the name and style of "Rashtriya Swayansevak Sangh" in view of the bar created under Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
3. The Assistant Registrar, in the impugned order, has recorded the finding that there is no documentary evidence in the form of registration certificate filed by the objectors on record to prove that the society under the name and style of "Rashtriya Swayansevak Sangh" or similar or identical to it, has wp6700.17.odt already been registered. Relying upon the Circular dated 22-12-2005 issued by the General Administration Department of the State Government bearing No.EMB-1005/1440/30, it is held that the Circular impliedly prohibits the use of name "Rashtriya" in the name of society. The order holds that the true spirit of the Circular is to prevent the name of society or trust, which will directly or by implication suggests the patronage of the Government of India or the State Government. It holds that to register the petitioner-society containing the name "Rashtriya", is against such Circular. It also holds that the registration of the petitioner-society is also barred by Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act in the absence of prior permission of the Government.
4. It is urged by Shri Ingole, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that in the absence of existence of any society being already registered in the name of "Rashtriya Swayansevak Sangh", the learned Assistant Registrar has committed an error in rejecting the application. He has further urged that there is no basis to form an opinion that the registration of the society in the wp6700.17.odt name of "Rashtriya Swayansevak Sangh" is undesirable either on the ground that the name is identical with, or resembles with any society previously registered, or that it suggests or is calculated to suggest the patronage of the Government or connection with any body constituted by the Government or any local authority. The reliance is placed upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Satyaprakash Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 147.
5. As against the aforesaid contentions, Shri Sunil Manohar, the learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri S.D. Abhyankar, Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the objectors, has urged that the provision of Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act is wide enough to include the power of the Registrar to reject the application for registration of the society in any particular name if it is found to be otherwise undesirable, though not even referable to categories 1 and 2 under Section 3-A of the said Act. He submits that the decision of the learned Single Judge relied upon has to be understood in the facts of the case before the Court.
6. According to Shri Anand Deshpande, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the word "Rashtriya" shows the patronage of the Government, which definitely creates confusion or it may mislead the public. He supports the order and relies upon the Circular dated 22-12-2005, introduced by virtue of the provisions as contemplated under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
7. The question involved is whether the rejection of the application of the petitioner for registration of the charitable society in the name of "Rashtriya Swayansevak Sangh" can be justified on the basis of the provision of Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act. The provision of Section 3-A of the said Act, being relevant is reproduced below :
"3-A. Prohibition against registration of societies with undesirable names.-- No society shall be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable, being a name which is identical with, or which in the wp6700.17.odt opinion of the Registrar so nearly resembles the name by which any other existing society has been previously registered, as to be likely to deceive the public or members of either society, or which, without the previous permission of the Government concerned, suggests or is calculated to suggest the patronage of that Government or connection with anybody constituted by that Government or any local authority, or which may, subject to any rules made in this behalf, be deemed to be undesirable by the Registrar."
Our reading of the provision of Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act is that the power of the Registrar to reject the application for registration of the society by name proposed, can be exercised on three grounds - (i) that such registration is undesirable being a name which is identical with, or so nearly resembles the name by which any other existing society has been previously registered, as to be likely to deceive the public or members of either society, or (ii) which suggests or is calculated to suggest the patronage of the Government or connection with any body constituted by that Government or any local authority, or (iii) which may be deemed to be undesirable. Ground No.(i) contemplates existence of registered Society in the identical name wp6700.17.odt or the name which resembles with such society. Ground No.(ii) does not contemplate existence of registered society, but it suggests or calculated to suggest the patronage or connection with the Government or local authority. For the society falling in ground No.(ii), the registration may be permissible with the prior permission of the Government concerned, whereas ground No.(iii) is subject to any rules made in that behalf.
8. It is urged by Shri Ingole that there is no third category unconnected with ground Nos.(i) and (ii) under Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act. Relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in Satyaprakash Sharma's case, cited supra, it is urged that the word "undesirable" in the last portion of the said Section does not denote general notion or concept of undesirable, which is ruled out. He, therefore, submits that the expression "be deemed to be undesirable" at the end of the provision is referable only to ground Nos.(i) and (ii). The argument of Shri Manohar is that the decision relied upon is distinguishable and the Court therein was dealing with similarity with the name of the society already registered.
9. It is not possible for us to accept the argument of Shri Ingole that the ground No.(iii) in Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act is referable only to ground Nos.(ii) and (iii) therein. In our view, Shri Manohar is right in urging that the expression "be deemed to be undesirable" pertains to a general category which may or may not include the ground Nos.(i) and (ii) under Section 3-A of the said Act for rejection of the application. Shri Manohar was right in pointing out an instance where a charitable society is sought to be registered in the names of Indian National Congress, Bhartiya Janta Party or such similar names, which are political organizations, but may not be registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The rejection may also be on the ground that registration of society in such a name is likely to deceive the public because of similarity or resemblance with any other organizations, like Indian National Congress, Bhartiya Janta Party. Apart from this, if the name of the Society is found ex facie undesirable, like "Terrorist Organization", there can be rejection in terms of ground No.(iii), which can be termed as residuary.
10. So far as the challenge based on Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India is concerned, no doubt, it relates to a fundamental right of the association or union. Of course, by Article 19(4), the operation of any existing law insofar as it imposes or prevents the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of right conferred by this Article in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, public order or morality and operation of such law is not affected. It is not the argument advanced that the provision of Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act is in any way unreasonable or contravenes the provision of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The authority acting under Section 3-A of the said Act is competent to reject the claim for registration of society in particular name, if in its opinion it is found to be undesirable.
11. In the present case, the Assistant Registrar has recorded the finding that the registration of the petitioner-society is barred under Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act in the absence of prior permission of the Government. Relying upon the wp6700.17.odt interpretation of the Circular dated 22-12-2005, it is held that the use of name "Rashtriya" in the name of the society directly or by implication suggests the patronage of the Government of India or the State Government. The decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Satyaprakash Sharma, cited supra, will have to be seen in the light of the facts of the case. It was a case of rejection which pertained to ground No.(i) in Section 3-A of the said Act. It was not the question involved as to whether in the absence of existing registered society having the name identical or resembling with the name of the society to be registered. The said decision is not applicable. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the arguments so advanced.
12. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
(VINAY JOSHI, J.)
(R.K. DESHPANDE, J.)