High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-11-22Writ petition allowed in part

International Organization for Human Rights Protection v Union of India and others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.6012/2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2021-11-22
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P3 is set aside. The 5th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed in part

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

International Organization for Human Rights Protection, Reg. No. IV/308/99, having its registered office at Punaratham, Kuzhakkathil Temple Road, Anayara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695028, represented by its Chairman P.S. Sreekumaran, S/O P.N. Sivadasan

Respondents

The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-100001
The State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the I.G. of Registration, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-695035
The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Ramapuram, Kottayam District, Pin-680631
The Principal Sub Registrar, Trivandrum Fort P.O., Trivandrum-695 035
The Chairman National Human Rights Commission, Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001
Addl.R7, National Human Rights Commission, Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi – 110 001, represented by its Secretary General

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Smt. Sadhana Kumari Eswari

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri S. Manu (ASGI)
• Sri Rashmi K.M. (Sr. Govt. Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

International Organization for Human Rights Protection, a Trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, petitioned the Kerala High Court seeking registration of a self-help group under the name International Organization for Human Rights Protection and its Malayalam equivalent. The petitioner contends the proposed name and object are not barred by the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, or any other law, and that registration should be allowed. The background is that Ext.P4 circular issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) cautions against NGOs registering under names similar to NHRC or State NHRC and invokes Section 4 of the 1950 Act; Ext.P3 is the registration authority’s order rejecting the application. The petitioner argues Ext.P4 is not applicable to its facts and asks for registration of the name and for a mandamus to direct the Sub Registrar to register the Exhibit P2 application. The respondents contend the object of the association is not connected with human rights and that Ext.P1’s membership clause, along with the circular, justifies refusal. The Court considered the arguments, observed Ext.P4’s scope, and held that Ext.P3 could be set aside to permit fresh adjudication. It directed the 5th respondent to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner, within two months, and allowed the petition in part.

Provisions of Law Cited

Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 – Section 4Indian Trusts Act, 1882

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the proposed name 'International Organization for Human Rights Protection' and its Malayalam rendering do not violate the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 or any law. The object of the trust is to protect human rights, promote education, and form self-help groups for income generation. Ext.P4 circular is not applicable to the facts of this case, and Ext.P3 should be reconsidered; registration of Exhibit P2 should be directed if permissible under law.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Ext.P4 circular warns against registering names similar to National/State Human Rights Commissions, invoking Section 4 of the 1950 Act. The object clause in Ext.P1 suggests the alliance is not primarily about human rights, and the proposed name could mislead or contravene the Act. The Sub Registrar’s order (Ext.P3) is a valid exercise of authority, and the matter requires a proper reconsideration with due process; thus, Ext.P3 should stand unless set aside for fresh adjudication.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against International Organization for Human Rights Protection v Union of India and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 6012 OF 2011** ## **PETITIONER:** INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION, REG.NO.IV/308/99, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PUNARTHAM, KUZHAKKATHIL TEMPLE ROAD,, ANAYARA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695028, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN P.S.SREEKUMARAN, S/O.P.N.SIVADASAN, RESIDING AT TC 77/1262, PATTAVILAKOM, PETTAH, TRIVANDRUM – 695 024 BY ADV SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY| |---|---| ||THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES| ||DEVELOPMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-100001| |2|THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE| ||CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,,| ||SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.| |3|THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION| ||OFFICE OF THE I.G. OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR,,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.| |4|THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE| ||RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-680631.| |5|THE PRINCIPLE SUB REGISTRAR| ||TRIVANDRUM FORT P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 035.| |6|THE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS| ||COMMISSION, FARIDCOT HOUSE, COPERNICUS MARG,, NEW| ||DELHI-110001.| |ADDL.R7|NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, FARIDCOT HOUSE,| ||COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001, REPRESENTED| ||BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL| **2** ## **W.P.(C).No.6012/2011** ADDL.7TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.10.11 IN IA 16386/11. BY ADVS.SRI.S.MANU, ASGI SMT.RASHMI K.M., SR.GOVT. PLEADER **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.6012/2011** **3** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------W.P.(C).No.6012 of 2011** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of November, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is a Trust registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1882. According to the petitioner, the main object of the Trust is the protection of human rights under the 30 Articles of Human Rights which are recognized and declared by the United Nations in 1948. It is also stated in the writ petition that the Trust is establishing many self helping groups of 10 members to start small scale business and generate income for the members of the group. The name proposed for registration ' of one of the self helping group was ആര�ധന മനഷ��വക�ശ സ�യ� ' സഹ�യസ�ഘ� . The memorandum for registration of the self helping group was rejected registration by the 5[th] respondent because of Ext.P4 circular from the Human Rights **W.P.(C).No.6012/2011** **4** Commission. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Registering Authority. According to the petitioner, there is no violation of Ext.P4 circular issued by the Human Rights Commission and if an opportunity is given, the petitioner will be able to convince the Registering Authority that Ext.P4 circular is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence this writ petition is filed with following prayers: - i. Declare that the name of the petitioner namely “International Organization for Human Rights Protection” and the petitioner's name in Malayalam "അനർ ദ�ശ�യ മനഷ��വക�ശ സ�ഘടന" is not against the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of improper use) Act 1950 or any other law and this name can be used as the name of the petitioner organization. - ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to register the Exhibit P2. - iii. Declare that the words “Human Rights Self Helping Group” is a name not against the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of improper use) Act 1950. - iv. Declare that the words “Human Rights” used in names are not in violation of the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of improper use) Act 1950 or any other law. - v. Pass such other writ/writs, order/orders which **W.P.(C).No.6012/2011** **5** this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. I also heard the Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI). 3. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated their contention in the writ petition. The counsel takes me through Ext.P2 request submitted by one of the member of the petitioner for which Ext.P3 reply was given by the Sub Registrar, Ramapuram. The counsel submitted that Ext.P3 is passed without considering the contents in Ext.P4 circular. On the other hand, the Government Pleader submitted that a reading of Ext.P1 will show that the object of the Association is nothing connected to Human Rights. The Government Pleader also takes me through the membership clause mentioned in Ext.P1 and submitted that the object of the petitioner is misleading. 4. I considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. I perused Ext.P2 request submitted by the office bearer of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 circular is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. **W.P.(C).No.6012/2011** **6** According to the counsel, in Ext.P4, it is stated like this: “It has come to the notice of the Commission that some NGOs/Organizations/Societies are getting themselves registered as society/trust/company with names similar to the National Human Rights Commission or State Human Rights Commission for example using words such as 'National Human Rights Association' or State Human Rights Association' etc. This attracts the provisions of Section 4 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.” 5. The counsel says that the petitioner can distinguish Ext.P4 and there is no objection in registering the petitioner association as 'ആര�ധന മനഷ��വക�ശ സ�യ� സഹ�യസ�ഘ�'. I think this is a matter to be decided by the 5[th] respondent. There can be a direction to the 5[th] respondent to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. For facilitating the 5[th] respondent to pass fresh orders, I think Ext.P3 order can be set aside. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner: 1. Ext.P3 is set aside. (Order No.73/2010 dated 21.06.2010 of the Sub Registrar, Ramapuram) **7** ## **W.P.(C).No.6012/2011** 2. The 5[th] respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. JV Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **8** ## **W.P.(C).No.6012/2011** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6012/2011** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE TRUST DEED DATED 01.08.1999 Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION PRESENTED FOR REGISTERATION Exhibit P3 COPY OF HTE SAID REPLY NO.73/2010 DATED 21.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, RAMAPURAM Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.DO 15 (38) 2008- COORD DATED 25.05.2009