Case Background
The case arose from an internal dispute in the Indian Red Cross Society, Siwan District Branch, over elections to its Management Committee.
The District Magistrate, Siwan, who is also President of the Siwan District Branch of the Indian Red Cross Society, issued letter no. 1447 dated 29.07.2023. By this letter, the petitioner, then working as Secretary of the District Branch, was informed that the Annual General Meeting for election of Management Committee members would be held on 20.08.2023 at 11:00 a.m. in the Town Hall, Siwan.
In this election, 43 candidates filed nomination papers to become members of the Management Committee. The Siwan Branch had 1440 members eligible to vote. During the meeting, the members decided that 15 persons would be selected as Management Committee members out of the 43 candidates.
Voting was conducted through ballot papers. After counting, 15 candidates were declared elected on the basis of the votes polled. The President (respondent no. 5) then issued certificates in favour of each of the 15 elected candidates on 20.08.2023.
After the election of these 15 members, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 12.09.2023 to respondent no. 5. He requested that the remaining posts of Chairman, Secretary, Vice-Chairman and Treasurer of the Management Committee be filled up by 25.09.2023. He referred to letter no. 172 dated 23.08.2023 issued by the District Magistrate, Siwan (respondent no. 1).
However, on 12.09.2023, respondent no. 5 passed an order, acting on complaints made by one Ashok Kumar Gupta and others. Respondent no. 4 (State Branch Secretary) decided that the election process held on 20.08.2023 was not justified, mainly because in the previous tenure there had been 27 Management Committee members and the Rules mentioned only a minimum number, not a maximum. The election conducted to select only 15 members was therefore considered illogical. As a result, the election was set aside and all 43 candidates were declared members of the Management Committee.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner demanded the election records from respondent no. 5 and, on 14.09.2023, wrote to respondent no. 4 with copies to respondents no. 1 and 2. He asserted that the election held on 20.08.2023 had been duly conducted pursuant to the letter of respondent no. 1, that 15 members had been elected through ballot, and that certificates had been issued. He contended that after more than 22 days, on the basis of complaints by defeated candidates, it was not legal to cancel the election and to declare all 43 candidates as members of the Management Committee.
He requested respondent no. 4 to take a fresh decision strictly in accordance with the Indian Red Cross Society Rules.
When this representation did not yield relief, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 14779 of 2023. He sought quashing of the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by respondent no. 6 pursuant to the decision of respondent no. 5, and restoration of the earlier result declared on 20.08.2023.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, heard the petitioner’s counsel and the counsel for the respondents. The Court framed the “moot question” at the very outset: whether the Indian Red Cross Society is “State” or its “instrumentality” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner argued that the Red Cross Society was regulated by the Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920 (Act XV of 1920), as amended by subsequent enactments and adaptation orders, and by governing Rules made under Section 5 of that Act for State and Union Territory branches. These Rules, according to him, had received the assent of the President of India.
He referred particularly to Chapter VI of the Rules, dealing with district branches, and Rule 4(g), which provides for holding the Annual General Meeting of all branch members on a day and place fixed by the President of the branch. In that AGM, members elect the Chairman and other members of the District Branch Committee. The minimum number of Management Committee members is prescribed as at least 10, including Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer.
The petitioner stressed that Section 3 of the Act provided that a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 30 members shall be elected for the Management Committee. Therefore, between 10 and 30, any specific number could be fixed by the General Body in the AGM. In his view, it was for the General Body, not the Collector, to decide this. He maintained that the Collector could not cancel the election; only the State Branch could approve or disapprove the election process. Hence, declaring all 43 candidates as Management Committee members was contrary to Section 3 and the Rules, and beyond the power of respondents no. 4 and 5.
To support his plea that the Red Cross Society was amenable to writ jurisdiction, the petitioner relied on several judicial decisions. He cited the judgment reported in 2002 SCC OnLine P & H 1265 (J.N. Gahlaut and others v. Indian Red Cross Society, Haryana State Branch and others), drawing attention to paragraphs 10 and 11. In that case, although the Court had held that the Red Cross Society was not “State” within Article 12, it had nonetheless entertained a writ on grounds of violation of service rules and natural justice.
He also referred to paragraph 5 of the judgment reported in I.L.R. [2018] M.P. 894 (New Balaji Chemist (M/s) v. Indian Red Cross Society (M.P. State Branch) & Anr), where arguments had been made regarding amenability of the Red Cross to writ jurisdiction due to its public functions. Additionally, he placed reliance on an order of the Patna High Court dated 11.12.2023 in CWJC No. 9954 of 2022 (Deepak Kumar v. State of Bihar and others).
The contesting respondents (nos. 7 to 14) took a strong preliminary objection. They submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable because the Indian Red Cross Society is not “State” or an “instrumentality” of the State under Article 12. They also contended that the petitioner had wrongly described himself as Secretary of the Siwan District Branch, even though the newly formed Management Committee had the authority to appoint its Secretary and the petitioner no longer held that post. Therefore, according to them, his actions and communications as Secretary were a misrepresentation.
On the legal question, the respondents relied first on the Constitution Bench judgment in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1987 SC 487, where six tests were laid down to decide whether a body is an instrumentality or agency of the State. These well-known tests include factors such as complete government ownership of share capital, overwhelming financial assistance from the State, monopoly status, deep and pervasive State control, performance of governmental functions, and transfer of a government department to the body.
The respondents further relied on K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, (2015) 4 SCC 670. The Supreme Court in that case reiterated the Ajay Hasia tests and emphasised that bodies performing voluntary, professional or technical functions without pervasive government control, and whose activities are not closely related to governmental functions, are not “State” under Article 12. In particular, the Supreme Court had held that the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, being a voluntary non-governmental organisation, did not perform public duties of the kind that attract writ jurisdiction.
To show how courts have treated the Red Cross itself, the respondents cited several High Court decisions. In Manoj Abraham Kahar v. Indian Red Cross Society & Ors, 2017 GLH (1) 156, the Gujarat High Court observed that Red Cross Societies worldwide are impartial, voluntary organisations working mainly through donations and gifts. The Court found that the Navsari District Branch did not receive government financial assistance and was not under State control. Its functions, though important, were not “in the nature of public duty”. The Court held that the Red Cross Society was not a State instrumentality and that a writ petition against it was not maintainable.
Similarly, in Gh. Rasool Bhat v. Indian Red Cross Society & Ors, 2010 (4) JKL 223, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court applied the Supreme Court’s tests and held that the Red Cross Society, funded by public donations and free from government financial and administrative control, was not an instrumentality, authority or agency of the State. Consequently, it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The judgment also referred to a Delhi High Court decision in Sarmukh Singh v. Indian Red Cross Society, where the same conclusion was reached.
The respondents also placed reliance on a Patna High Court decision in CWJC No. 19201 of 2021 (Bipin Kumar Singh v. State Bank of India), particularly paragraphs 15 to 17, to underline that disputes arising from internal elections of bodies governed by bye-laws, especially where disputed facts are involved, should ordinarily be resolved through mechanisms provided in those bye-laws or through appropriate civil remedies, not by writ petitions.
On facts, the respondents argued that the election conducted to select only 15 members was itself contrary to Chapter VI Rule 1 C 2 of the Indian Red Cross Society Rules, which prescribed only a minimum of 10 members but did not limit the maximum in the way the petitioner claimed. The previous Management Committee had 27 members. They described the 20.08.2023 AGM as marred by confusion, stating that initially 43 members were publicly announced as nominated or elected as Managing Committee members. Serious objections to the election modalities were raised before the Deputy Development Commissioner and the District Magistrate, Siwan. After taking cognizance, the authorities issued memo no. 548-II dated 12.09.2023, nominating all 43 candidates as Managing Committee members.
After reviewing the rival submissions and the case law, the Patna High Court concluded that the functions of the Indian Red Cross Society are not in the nature of public duty. It described the Society as a purely impartial voluntary organisation. Relying on the judgments cited above, the Court held that the Red Cross Society cannot be treated as “State” or its instrumentality under Article 12; therefore, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Having reached this conclusion on maintainability, the Court considered it unnecessary and improper to go into the merits of the petitioner’s grievance about the election process or the validity of the order dated 12.09.2023. The Court noted that commenting on merits could prejudice the petitioner if he chose to approach a civil court or any other appropriate forum.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed solely on the ground of non-maintainability, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy available in law.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for members and office-bearers of voluntary organisations like the Indian Red Cross Society.
First, the Patna High Court has clearly held that the Red Cross Society, including its district branches, is not “State” or an instrumentality of the State under Article 12. This means internal disputes about elections, postings or management decisions in such bodies generally cannot be taken directly to the High Court under writ jurisdiction.
Second, the decision reminds members that internal rules, bye-laws and civil court remedies are the primary routes for resolving such disputes. If there is alleged illegality in elections or decisions of a Management Committee, affected persons must normally use remedies provided in the Society’s own framework or file an appropriate civil case.
Third, the Court’s refusal to go into the factual disputes about the Siwan elections demonstrates that writ courts avoid deciding contested election facts of private or voluntary bodies, especially when doing so would require detailed evidence and examination.
For people involved in NGOs, charitable trusts, clubs or societies, the message is that they should not assume that High Courts will intervene in every internal disagreement, even where government officials hold honorary posts in the organisation.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Is the Indian Red Cross Society, including its Siwan District Branch, “State” or an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, so that a writ petition under Article 226 lies against it?
Answer: No. The Court held that the Red Cross Society is a purely impartial voluntary organisation whose functions are not in the nature of public duty. It is not financially, functionally or administratively dominated by the government, and therefore is not “State” or its instrumentality under Article 12. Consequently, the writ petition is not maintainable. - Issue: Should the High Court examine the validity of the order dated 12.09.2023 cancelling the earlier election result and declaring all 43 candidates as Management Committee members?
Answer: No. Once the Court found the writ to be not maintainable, it declined to comment on the merits of the election dispute to avoid prejudicing the petitioner, leaving him free to approach a civil court or any other appropriate forum.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1987 SC 487.
- K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, (2015) 4 SCC 670.
- J.N. Gahlaut and others v. Indian Red Cross Society, Haryana State Branch and others, 2002 SCC OnLine P & H 1265.
- New Balaji Chemist (M/s) v. Indian Red Cross Society (M.P. State Branch) & Anr, I.L.R. [2018] M.P. 894.
- Manoj Abraham Kahar v. Indian Red Cross Society & Ors, 2017 GLH (1) 156.
- Gh. Rasool Bhat v. Indian Red Cross Society & Ors, 2010 (4) JKL 223.
- Sarmukh Singh v. Indian Red Cross Society, 1985 LAB I.C. 1072 (as referred in Gh. Rasool Bhat).
- CWJC No. 9954 of 2022, Deepak Kumar v. State of Bihar and others (Patna High Court order dated 11.12.2023, referred by petitioner).
- CWJC No. 19201 of 2021, Bipin Kumar Singh v. State Bank of India (Patna High Court).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14779 of 2023
Case Title: Ratnesh Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Siwan & Ors
Citation: 2024 (4) PLJR 68
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma
Date of Judgment: 23.08.2024
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders relating to election of Management Committee members of the Indian Red Cross Society, Siwan District Branch.
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate; Ms. Rano Neha Kumari, Advocate.
- For the State: Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Government Advocate 8; Mr. Upendra Kumar Singh, Assistant Counsel to GA 8.
- For respondents nos. 7 to 14: Mr. Amit Srivastava, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sumit Shekhar Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Mayank Madan, Advocate.
Link to Full Judgment: Click here to access the Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
