New Delhi | August 6, 2025
The Supreme Court has ruled that an organization’s registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 does not erase its character as a public trust, if that character existed beforehand. The Court emphasized that the real nature of an entity depends on how it functions—not merely on the label it carries.
The judgment came in a case involving Operation ASHA, a health-related charitable organization, where questions arose over whether its conversion into a society removed its obligations as a public trust.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that the essence of a public trust lies in its conduct, objectives, and the manner of public involvement—not just in formal registration documents.
• Registering as a society doesn’t wipe out earlier public trust responsibilities, especially if the entity was previously operating as a de facto or constructive trust for public benefit.
• At the same time, the Court clarified that registration alone doesn’t automatically make an entity a trust. Trust character must arise from factssuch as managing public contributions, acting in public interest, or holding property on behalf of a community.
• If such a trust-like relationship exists, then Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)—which allows representative suits in cases involving breach of public trust can be invoked, even against a registered society.
“The mere act of registering under the Societies Act cannot be used as a cloak to sidestep public obligations where the entity was, in substance, acting as a public trust,” the Court observed.
Does society registration dissolve trust responsibilities? No—substance prevails over form.
Can an entity avoid accountability under Section 92 CPC just by registering as a society? No—trust character survives if evident in actions.
Is registration alone enough to make a trust? No—public trust status must be supported by intent and conduct.
This ruling protects the integrity of charitable organizations, educational foundations, and social missions that may have started as informal or unregistered initiatives but eventually registered under formal society laws. It prevents any misuse of legal structure to escape accountability or transparency.
This decision reinforces the idea that trust law in India focuses on substance over form. Courts can look beyond paperwork to assess whether an organization was managing assets for public good, even before it formally registered as a society or trust.
In doing so, the Court has built on prior legal reasoning, including the principle that a constructive trust can arise where an organization takes on public responsibilities—even in the absence of a formal trust deed.
The ruling ensures that entities cannot escape legal scrutiny or public duty simply by switching labels. It upholds the right of the public—or interested parties—to seek remedies under trust law if the core character of the organization serves a larger public mission.
This ensures greater transparency, accountability, and legal continuity in India’s voluntary and non-profit sector.
Case Title Operation ASHA v. Shelly Batra & Others
