LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/the-auroville-foundation-vs-natasha-storey-20250317/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

The Auroville Foundation vs Natasha Storey

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
17 March 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 13651 of 2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
Bela M. Trivedi, Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
Citation
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 469 : 2025 INSC 348
Acts & Sections
Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 Auroville Foundation Rules, 1997 Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 469 : 2025 INSC 348
Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to the applicability of the doctrine of “clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” to the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking substantially the same relief without disclosing the material fact of the dismissal of earlier petition; the correctness of the impugned order passed by the High Court entertaining the said writ petition; and as regards the right of the Residents’ Assembly to be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing Board of the appellant Foundation.
Headnote

Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court – Applicability of doctrine of “clean hands and non-suppression of material facts – On facts, disgruntled residents of Auroville to obstruct the development work of Auroville as per the Master Plan filed unnecessary petitions in the High Court one after the other – Respondent filed writ petition challenging the office order issued by the appellant Foundation and sought direction against the Foundation to appoint the members nominated by the Residents’Assembly through its working Council to the Auroville Town Development Council – Dismissed by the High Court holding that the activities provided u/s.19, to be undertaken by the Residents’ Assembly are only in the nature of supplementing and not supplanting the main powers and functions vested with the Governing Board – Respondent again filed writ petition seeking substantially the same relief without disclosing the material fact of the dismissal of earlier petition – Preliminary objections by the appellant regarding the maintainability of the petition and suppression of material facts by the respondent, however, High Court without dealing with the same, entertained the writ petition – Correctness:

Read the full headnote (2 more paragraphs)

Held: Doctrine of “clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to every proceedings before any judicial forum – Party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art.226 must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition – If it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has been guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter – Non-disclosure of the material facts at the instance of the respondent should have been seriously viewed by the High Court, as the abuse of the process of court – Furthermore, neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate or confer any right upon the Residents’ Assembly, or upon an individual resident of Auroville to be part of any committee/council constituted by the Governing Board for the efficient discharge of its duties and functions under the Act – Governing Board is vested with all the powers and is empowered to discharge all the functions as may be exercised or discharged by the Foundation, and that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Foundation vests in the Governing Board alone – Functions of the Residents’ Assembly are confined only to advise the Governing Board in respect of the activities relating to the residents of Auroville and to make recommendations as specified in s.19, and not any further – Though, s.19(1)(c) required the Residents’ Assembly to assist the Governing Board to formulate the Master Plan of Auroville, however, the said stage already over, when the Master Plan was prepared by the Governing Board in consultation with the Residents’ Assembly and was then approved by the Central Government – Thus, the impugned Standing Order does not suffer from any legal infirmity – High Court misdirected itself in misinterpreting the provisions of the Act and in setting aside the impugned Notification containing the Standing Order – Impugned order being highly erroneous set aside – Writ Petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was to abuse the process of law, to hamper the development of Auroville and to cause obstructions in the smooth functioning of the Governing Board of the Foundation – Cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the respondent – Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 – ss.11(3), 19, 16(1),

17 – Auroville Foundation Rules, 1997 – r.5. [Paras 9-11, 15-19]

Keywords: Doctrine of clean hands · Non-suppression of material facts · Right of the Residents’ Assembly, to be part of any committee or council constituted by the Governing Board · Extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court · Disgruntled residents of Auroville · Obstruction of the development work of Auroville as per the Master Plan · Working Council to the Auroville Town Development Council · Suppression of material facts · Judicial forum · Abuse of process of law · Non-disclosure of the material facts

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Bela M. Trivedi, J. 1. The legality and validity of the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 25882 of 2022, allowing the said Writ Petition filed by the Respondent-Natasha Storey and setting aside the impugned Notification dated 01.06.2022 containing the Standing Order No. 01/2022 issued by the Appellant-Foundation, is under challenge before this Court by way of instant appeal. 2. Before adverting to issues involved in the Appeal, it would be apposite to peep into the history of Auroville, and the objects and reas
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →