Political Affiliation Alone Not Disqualification; But Pattern Of Appointments Raises Concerns: SC Upholds Bombay HC Ruling On Shirdi Sai Baba Trust Appointments

The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the Bombay High Court's decision to set aside the appointments of members to the Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Management Committee, Shirdi.

The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masiah underscored that while political affiliation is not a disqualification under the Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act, 2004, the selection process adopted by the Maharashtra government was flawed and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

"It is true that under the provisions of the 2004 Act and the said Rules, having political affiliation or connection is by itself no disqualification. However, the Court has examined the entire process and has concluded that persons belonging to the same class of having political affiliations/connections have been appointed. In short, those who do not have political connections have been excluded. This makes the entire process questionable. It becomes arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution," the Bench observed. 

Senior Advocates Jayanth Muth Raj and V. Giri appeared for the petitioners, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State. 

The Court observed that the High Court’s findings revealed all appointees had political affiliations, effectively excluding meritorious candidates without such connections. This pattern, the Court held, undermines the objective of the 2004 Act to ensure better governance, management, and welfare activities of the Trust.

Highlighting Rule 3 of the Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Appointment of Members of Management Committee and Forms of Declarations) Rules, 2013, the Court reiterated the need to select candidates with professional qualifications and expertise in diverse fields such as law, business management, engineering, and public health, among others.

The Court emphasized that the selection process must be fair, transparent, and aimed at appointing the most qualified individuals. It warned that politically skewed appointments could defeat the trust’s objective and expose the process to charges of arbitrariness.

While concurring with the High Court’s decision, the Court clarified that political affiliation itself does not disqualify a candidate under the 2004 Act. The decision-making process, however, must prioritize merit and transparency.

The Court directed the Maharashtra government to conduct a fresh selection process in accordance with the Rules and ensure compliance with the principles laid down by the judiciary. "There is no positive finding recorded by the High Court that any of the Members whose appointments have been set aside has incurred disqualification in terms of the provisions of the 2004 Act. The original file submitted to this Court in terms of the order of this Court shall be returned to the learned counsel representing the State," the Court directed. 

The appeals were dismissed, and the Court returned the case file to the counsel for the state. "Considering the nature of findings recorded by the High Court and subject to what we have observed above, we find that this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere. If the process of selection is properly conducted by choosing the best possible persons within the framework of the Rules, it will help the cause of the Trust. The process of selection must be made in a fair and transparent manner. Otherwise, it will expose itself to the vice of arbitrariness. Hence, subject to what is observed above, we concur with the view taken by the High Court, and accordingly, the appeals are dismissed," the Bench observed. 

Cause Title: Avinash Appasaheb Dandawate & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 16967-16968/2022]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Vishnu Sharma A.S. (AOR), Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj, Vinodh Kanna B. (AOR), Pradeep Kumar Kar, V. Purushothaman Reddy, Senior Advocate V. Giri, B. Vinodh Kanna, M.R. Abhilash, Pradeep Kumar Kar, Rahul Narang, Rao Vishwaja, Harshed Sundar, Nihar Dharmadhikari

Respondent: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande (AOR), Bharat Bagla, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Kishor Lambat, Kashmira Lambasted, Kashmira Lambat, Suja Joshi, Lambat & Legiteam (AOR), Pradnya Talekar, Ajinkya Kale, Pulkit Agarwal (AOR), Anubhav Lamba, Sudhanshu Kaushal, Vishakha Patil, S.B. Talekar, Alok Abhinav, Somiran Sharma (AOR), Vishnu Sharma A.S. (AOR), Sachin Patil, Sunny Jadhav, Sunil Kumar Verma (AOR)

Click here to read/download the Order