Supreme Court upholds Auroville Governing Board's power to issue Standing Orders; sets aside Madras HC order

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale heard an appeal by the Auroville Foundation challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment dated 15.03.2024 in Writ Petition No.25882 of 2022, which had set aside Notification No. AF/M/63/2022-23 dated 01.06.2022 containing Standing Order No.1/2022. The appeal concerned the validity of the Foundation’s Standing Order reconstituting the Auroville Town Development Council (ATDC) and the respective roles of the Governing Board and the Residents’ Assembly under the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order and held that the Standing Order dated 01.06.2022 did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The bench found that the Governing Board, as vested by the Auroville Foundation Act and the Rules, had power to constitute committees and to determine their composition and functions; the Residents’ Assembly’s role was advisory and consultative. The Court also criticised the respondent for non-disclosure of an earlier writ petition that had been dismissed and imposed costs of Rs.50,000 on the respondent to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “From the conjoint reading of the provisions of the A.F. Act and the said Rules, there remains no shadow of doubt that the 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.” The bench further noted that parties invoking extraordinary jurisdiction must act with candour: "The party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition."

Background The dispute arose from the Auroville Foundation’s reconstitution of the ATDC by Standing Order No.1/2022 (01.06.2022), published in the Gazette on 15.07.2022, which replaced earlier Standing Orders issued for implementation of the approved Master Plan of Auroville. The Foundation was established under the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 and functions through three authorities: the Governing Board, the Residents’ Assembly and the Auroville International Advisory Council. Sections 11, 16 and 17 of the Act and Rule 5 of the Auroville Foundation Rules, 1997 empower the Governing Board to exercise general superintendence, appoint committees and determine their composition and functions.

The respondent, Natasha Storey, challenged the 01.06.2022 office order and Standing Order before the Madras High Court arguing that the Governing Board could not supplant the Residents’ Assembly’s role. The High Court allowed her writ petition and set aside the notification. The Supreme Court record showed multiple prior litigations by some residents challenging elements of the Master Plan and the Foundation’s actions; notably, the respondent had earlier filed Writ Petition No.22895/2022 seeking similar relief which had been dismissed on 13.10.2022 — a fact the Court found was not disclosed when she filed Writ Petition No.25882/2022.

On appeal the Foundation argued that the Master Plan had been prepared by the Governing Board in consultation with the Residents’ Assembly and approved by the Central Government, and that the Governing Board retained the statutory authority to constitute bodies such as the ATDC to implement the Master Plan. The Supreme Court reviewed Sections 11(3), 16 and 17 of the Act, Rule 5 of the Rules and the Foundation’s Regulations and held that neither the Act nor the Rules conferred a statutory right on the Residents’ Assembly or any individual resident to be members of committees constituted by the Governing Board. The Court found the High Court had misinterpreted the statutory scheme and had erred in setting aside the Standing Order. The appeal was allowed and the High Court order was set aside; the respondent was directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000 within two weeks.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No.13651 of 2024 (2025 INSC 348) Case Title: The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): R. Venkatramani, Senior Advocate (for the Appellant Auroville Foundation) For the Respondent(s): M.V. Swaroop, Advocate (for the Respondent Natasha Storey)