The Adjudicatory Role of the Charity Commissioner in Processing Change Reports: A Procedural and Jurisdictional Analysis under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950

Introduction

The administration and regulation of public trusts in India, particularly in states like Maharashtra and Gujarat where the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (BPTA) (hereinafter "the Act") is applicable, are significantly overseen by the office of the Charity Commissioner. A critical aspect of this oversight involves maintaining an accurate and up-to-date register of public trusts. Section 22 of the Act mandates the reporting of any changes in the entries recorded in this register, thereby initiating a process known as the "change report." This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework governing change reports, focusing on the powers, procedures, and adjudicatory role of the Charity Commissioner (including Deputy and Assistant Charity Commissioners) in processing these reports. It examines the statutory provisions, key judicial pronouncements, and the implications for trust administration in India.

The Statutory Framework for Change Reports: Section 22 of the BPTA, 1950

Section 22 of the BPTA is the cornerstone for managing alterations to the official records of a public trust. It outlines the obligations of trustees, the inquiry process by the Charity Commissioner's office, and the eventual amendment of the public trust register.

Duty to Report Changes

Section 22(1) of the Act imposes a mandatory duty upon the trustees of a public trust. As articulated in the statutory text provided in Vijay K. Mehta And Another v. Charu K. Mehta And Others (Bombay High Court, 2008), "Where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the register kept under section 17, the trustee shall, within 90 days from the date of the occurrence of such change, or where any change is desired in such entries in the interest of the administration of such public trust, report such change or proposed change to the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner... Such report shall be made in the prescribed form." This provision ensures that the Charity Commissioner is kept informed of any modifications concerning the trust, such as changes in trustees, movable or immovable property, or other particulars recorded in the Schedule I register.

Inquiry by the Charity Commissioner

Upon receipt of a change report, or even if no report is filed but the authorities suspect a change, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner is empowered to conduct an inquiry. Section 22(1A) (as detailed in Vijay K. Mehta And Another v. Charu K. Mehta And Others (Bombay High Court, 2008) and Charu K. Mehta v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust And Others (Bombay High Court, 2012)) states that if the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner, after receiving a report or holding an inquiry, "is satisfied that a change has occurred... he shall record a finding with the reasons therefor to that effect; and if he is not so satisfied, he shall record a finding with reasons therefor accordingly." This inquiry is pivotal for verifying the authenticity and legality of the reported change. Section 22(2) further empowers the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner to hold an inquiry "for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries or for ascertaining whether any change has occurred" (MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN SHELGI v. SUBASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR (Supreme Court Of India, 2024)).

Provisional Acceptance and Objections

The first proviso to Section 22(2) of the Act introduces a mechanism for provisional acceptance of certain changes, particularly in the names and addresses of trustees and managers. As noted in MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN SHELGI v. SUBASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR (Supreme Court Of India, 2024), the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner "may provisionally accept the change and issue a notice inviting objections to such change within thirty days from the date of publication of such notice." If no objections are received, the provisional acceptance becomes final. However, if objections are lodged, the third proviso mandates that the authority "may hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner and record a finding within three months from the date of filing objections." This process ensures transparency and allows interested parties to contest changes before they are formally recorded.

Finality and Amendment of Register

The findings of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner on a change report are appealable to the Charity Commissioner (Section 22(1A) as per Vijay K. Mehta And Another v. Charu K. Mehta And Others (Bombay High Court, 2008)). The entries in the register are amended or deleted in accordance with the final decision of the competent authority. As stated in Charu K. Mehta v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust And Others (Bombay High Court, 2012), "The amendments in the entries so made subject to any further amendment on occurrence of a change or any cancellation of entries, shall be final and conclusive.” The Supreme Court in Krishnarao Kanhaiya Naidu And Others… v. Jeevraj Bhairavlal Agrawal And Others… (Bombay High Court, 2009, referencing earlier Supreme Court views) clarified that "although a change may have occurred it assumes finality only when the order is passed [under section 22(3)]."

The Nature and Scope of the Charity Commissioner's Inquiry

The inquiry conducted by the Charity Commissioner's office into a change report is not a mere administrative formality but a quasi-judicial function.

Adjudicatory Functions and Powers

The Supreme Court in K. Shamrao And Others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner (2003 SCC 3 563) held that the Assistant Charity Commissioner, when exercising powers under the BPTA, possesses attributes of a "court" for the purposes of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This is because Section 73 of the BPTA grants these authorities powers akin to those vested in civil courts, such as summoning witnesses, compelling document production, and conducting examinations on oath. This underscores the judicial nature of the inquiry into change reports, where evidence is evaluated and findings are made based on legal principles and factual determinations.

Scrutiny of Changes

The scope of inquiry can be extensive, covering various aspects of trust administration. For instance, the Charity Commissioner scrutinizes the legality of elections of trustees (Swami Satyaprakashdasji Gurughanshyam Prasad Swami & Anr. v. Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot & Anr. (1999 SCC ONLINE GUJ 244); Nawalchand Champalal Chaudhari v. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur (2007 ALLMR 1 71)), the validity of member enrollments (Krishnarao Kanhaiya Naidu And Others v. Jeevraj Bhairavlal Agrawal And Others (Bombay High Court, 2009); Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar v. Jayawant (2010 SCC ONLINE BOM 481)), and the genuineness of resignations or changes in office bearers (B.J Wahane And Another v. Kamlesh Gangaram Kanoje (1996 SCC ONLINE BOM 490)). If irregularities are found, such as member enrollment in breach of the trust's scheme, the change report may be rejected (Krishnarao Kanhaiya Naidu And Others v. Jeevraj Bhairavlal Agrawal And Others (Bombay High Court, 2009)).

Condonation of Delay

While Section 22(1) prescribes a 90-day period for reporting changes, the Act acknowledges that delays can occur. The Supreme Court in MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN SHELGI v. SUBASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR (Supreme Court Of India, 2024) highlighted that a proviso to Section 22(1) enables the authority to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. The Court, citing Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy ((2013) 12 SCC 649), advocated for a "liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach" when dealing with applications for condonation of delay, emphasizing that delay in filing a change report would not, by itself, entail non-acceptance or nullification of the changes.

Consequences of Failure to Report

Failure to report a change within the stipulated time or at all does not automatically invalidate the change itself. However, it can lead to consequences. As observed in MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN SHELGI v. SUBASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR (Supreme Court Of India, 2024), a trustee failing to report a change may be liable to pay a fine, and continued failure might invite more adverse consequences under the Act. These consequences, however, "would flow from the orders passed by the authorities concerned under the relevant provisions and would not stem from such failure automatically."

Jurisdictional Aspects and Procedural Integrity

The processing of change reports is embedded within a specific jurisdictional framework designed to ensure specialized and efficient handling of trust matters.

Exclusive Jurisdiction of Charity Commissioner

A fundamental principle underpinning the BPTA is the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under it for matters that the Act empowers them to decide. Section 80 of the BPTA bars civil courts from adjudicating issues that fall within the purview of the Charity Commissioner. The Supreme Court in Church Of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai And Others (2005 SCC 10 760) emphatically upheld this principle, stating that the BPTA is a comprehensive code for public trusts and matters such as changes in trust administration (e.g., mergers, which inherently involve changes to be recorded) are to be decided by the Charity Commissioner. This exclusivity also extends to questions that are ancillary to the determination of whether a change has occurred (Sainath Mandir Trust v. Vijaya And Others (2011 SCC 1 623)).

Hierarchical Adjudication: Can the Charity Commissioner Decide Change Reports Directly?

The statutory scheme generally envisages that the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner conducts the initial inquiry into change reports, with the Charity Commissioner acting as an appellate authority. An interesting jurisdictional question was raised in SHRIKRISHNA G. JOSHI and ORS. v. CHARITY COMMISSIONER and ORS. (Bombay High Court, 2025, anticipated decision date). The petitioners argued that the Charity Commissioner, being an appellate authority, cannot directly decide a change report, as this would deny the aggrieved party an opportunity of appeal, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Another ((1988) 2 SCC 602). This highlights the importance of adhering to the statutory hierarchy to preserve the right to appeal and ensure procedural fairness.

Appellate and Revisional Mechanisms

Decisions on change reports by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner are appealable to the Charity Commissioner (Section 70 of the BPTA). Further, an application can be made to the District Court against the decision of the Charity Commissioner under Section 72 of the BPTA (Dinkar Shankarrao Patil And Others v. Dr. Sheshrao Shankarrao Patil And Others (Bombay High Court, 2008)). The District Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 72, has been held to possess powers to remand the matter for fresh decision (Mamta And Others v. Kusumtai Baburao Zade And Others (Bombay High Court, 2019)). Ultimately, these decisions can be subject to judicial review by the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Importance of Expeditious Disposal

The timely processing of change reports is crucial for the proper administration of trusts. The Bombay High Court in Dinkar Shankarrao Patil And Others v. Dr. Sheshrao Shankarrao Patil And Others (Bombay High Court, 2008) emphasized that the Assistant Charity Commissioner "shall decide and dispose of the change reports expeditiously, if necessary, by hearing the matters on day to day basis," as this "may help in proper administration of the trust in question, as well as the trustees concerned."

Interplay with Other Provisions and Broader Trust Administration

The mechanism of change reports is intrinsically linked with other regulatory functions of the Charity Commissioner and the overall governance of public trusts.

Change Reports and Suits Concerning Trust Property

The accuracy of the register, maintained through change reports, is vital when disputes concerning trust property arise. While change reports deal with updating entries, suits for possession of trust property require the Charity Commissioner's consent under Sections 50 and 51 of the BPTA (Sainath Mandir Trust v. Vijaya And Others (2011 SCC 1 623)). The definition of "persons having interest in the trust," which includes trustees, is relevant for initiating such actions (Shree Gollaleshwar Dev And Others v. Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math And Others (1985 SCC 4 393)).

Change Reports and Directions under Section 41A

Section 41A of the BPTA empowers the Charity Commissioner to issue directions for the proper administration of a public trust. In Dinkar Shankarrao Patil And Others v. Dr. Sheshrao Shankarrao Patil And Others (Bombay High Court, 2008), the court noted that the Charity Commissioner should be careful while entertaining applications under Section 41A, especially when change reports are pending, and should record findings on the entertainability of such applications. Sometimes, directions are issued to hold elections and file change reports (Nawalchand Champalal Chaudhari v. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur (2007 ALLMR 1 71)).

Impact on Trust Management and "No Trustee" Situations

Delays or disputes in processing change reports, particularly those concerning the election or appointment of trustees, can lead to administrative vacuums. In Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar v. Jayawant (2010 SCC ONLINE BOM 481), pending change reports and the expiry of terms of existing bodies led to a "no trustee situation," necessitating an application under Section 47 of the BPTA for the appointment of new trustees to manage the trust's affairs. This underscores the practical importance of efficient change report adjudication.

Conclusion

The process of reporting and adjudicating changes under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, is a cornerstone of public trust regulation in India. The Charity Commissioner and their subordinate officers play a crucial quasi-judicial role in ensuring that the public trust register accurately reflects the current state of affairs of a trust. This involves a careful inquiry into reported changes, adherence to principles of natural justice, and a balanced approach to procedural requirements such as delays in reporting. The exclusive jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner in these matters, coupled with established appellate and revisional remedies, aims to provide a specialized and efficient system for trust administration. Judicial pronouncements have consistently reinforced the statutory framework, emphasizing procedural integrity, the finality of duly recorded changes, and the importance of the Charity Commissioner's role in safeguarding the interests of public trusts. Continued clarity on jurisdictional boundaries and expeditious disposal of change reports remain vital for the effective governance and administration of public charitable and religious institutions in India.