Societies Can't Be Run Indefinitely Through Court Appointed Administrators, Will Infringe Democratic Rights Of Members: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that the appointment of interim administrator must always be a temporary corrective measure because of the factual exigencies. The bench also remarked that after appointing interim administrators, the courts should ensure that elections are conducted swiftly.

“It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that the Court appointed Interim Administrators complete their job by election in a short span of time and restore the administration of the Society or Institution and handover the charge to the democratically elected office bearers of the Society or Association. The Courts are not expected to run the public administration for an indefinite period through Interim Administrators or Administrators. The Courts are bound to resolve the disputes and therefore appointment of an Interim Administrator is an interim measure,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal made by the Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam, represented by its president Mr.L.Noelraj asking the court to frame a Scheme to administer the estate of the Sangam. In the earlier petition for injunction against some of the office bearers of the Sangam, the court, in 2005, had appointed Justice A Ramamoorthy, retired judge of the Madras High Court to look after the affairs of the sangam. The retired judge continued to look into the affairs of the sangam.

Noelraj argued that the interim administrator could not continue managing the trust, as the original suit, which was transferred to the City Civil Court had been withdrawn. It was argued that when the suit itself did not exist, the appointment of the interim administrator would also come to an end.

It was also submitted that an election had been conducted as per the bye-laws of the Sangam and Noelraj had been elected as the President of the Sangam. Thus, he contended that interim administrator need not be allowed to continue and such continuation would deprive the right of the elected office bearers to run the administration and would be opposed to the principles of democracy.

The interim administrator, on the other hand, submitted that the disputes between the erstwhile office bearers was still continuing and though Noelraj had claimed to be the President of the Sangam, one Radhakrishnan was making a counter claim. He added that he was running the administration in a peaceful manner and should be allowed to continue as handing over administration may result in maladministration.

The court remarked that it was not primarily intended to run administrations and the court's jurisdiction must be only to resolve dispute and ensure lawful governance. The court added that appointment of interim administrators should be resorted to only in situations where democratic governance is rendered impossible due to factual exigencies.

The court added that an administration's governance must always remain democratic and any justification must be supported by law and justified by proven mismanagement.

“The routine interference with elected bodies undermines the autonomy of societies and discourages member participation. When statutory Authorities or the judiciary themselves interfere without sufficient legal foundation, it weakens the democratic fabric of such Institutions and creates an atmosphere of fear among members and office bearers. Governance by its very nature must remain democratic and participatory, and any interference must be supported by law and justified by proven mismanagement or misconduct,” the court said.

In the present case, the court noted that the interim administrator had been continuing for 19 years and such long continuance of court appointed administrators would infringe the democratic rights of the members.

The court further noted that Noelraj had been appointed as the President of the Sangam by way of elections and if the members had any grievance, they could challenge the election or the resolution passed by the general body. The court added that continuation of the retired judge as the interim administrator was not desirable since he had been continuing in the post for 19 years, shocking the conscience of the court.

The court thus directed the retired judge to handover the administration to the elected member within 2 weeks and asked the elected President to run the administration in accordance with law. The court also added that any aggrieved member was at liberty to challenge the election, if they wished so.

Counsel for Appellate: Ms.P.Padmeshwari

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy

Case Title: Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam v. A.T.S.V.S.Siddha Medical College & Hospital

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 343

Case No: O.S.A.No.311 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.23423 of 2025