International Organization For Human Rights Protection vs Union Of India

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.

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 5th respondent because of Ext.P4 circular from the Human Rights 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  "അന   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 this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. I also heard the Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI).

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.

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.

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."

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 5th respondent. There can be a direction to the 5th respondent to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. For facilitating the 5th respondent to pass fresh orders, I think Ext.P3 order can be set aside.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

Ext.P3 is set aside. (Order No.73/2010 dated 21.06.2010 of the Sub Registrar, Ramapuram)

The 5th 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.