Page 1 of 3
Massbulletin 25.10.24
RA WCom: Clarification on recent article about MHC judgement on Auroville Working
Committee
Dear Community,
Below is a letter that was sent by us to the editor of The Hindu today in response to an article
that appeared in the 24th October 2024 edition.
If you have any questions please free to contact us at workingcom@auroville.services or visit us
during open hours on Tuesdays from 10 am to 12 pm.
In service,
The Working Committee of the RA
Aravinda, Bharathy, Chali, Maël (TOS), Matthieu, Prashant, Valli
_________________________
To:
Mr. Suresh Nambath,
Editor,
The Hindu, Chennai
Dear Respected Sir,
In response to the article in your publication titled, 'Attempts to regulate Auroville's functioning
are met with resistance and litigation says Madras HC', we request you to please take note of
the following clarification and publish this as a letter to the editor or, ideally, as a new article, in
order to provide a balanced perspective on this matter.
Recent press releases and various communications across media platforms, including in your
publication, have suggested that the Madras High Court order issued on 01.08.2024 and
uploaded only last week by a single bench, has given legal sanctity to the 7 members of the
Working Committee of the Residents' Assembly of the Auroville Foundation recognized by the
office of the Secretary to the Governing Board. In consultation with our lawyers, we would like
to clarify the following:
- The order issued by the single bench does not provide a final or conclusive validation of the
composition of the Working Committee. It merely states that the members cannot be
Page 2 of 3
disqualified through a Quo Warranto petition, indicating that the legal tool used in this case was
procedurally unsuitable. Importantly, the order explicitly states:
"This Court cannot, and it is not inclined to go into the aspect of whether the respondents or, for
that matter, the members of the petitioner Committee have earned any disqualification on this
score."
- The petitioner in this case is the Working Committee of the Residents' Assembly, and the court
seems to have expressed inability to decide that issue in light of the facts and circumstances
recorded in the judgement.
- Moreover, we are advised to state that the single bench order does not, and cannot, override
the previous orders of the division bench led by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
Notably, the division bench order dated 23.02.2024 states:
“Until further orders, the functioning of the Working Committee under Section 20 of the AVF
Act shall not be interfered with by the Committee constituted under the impugned regulations
and the Working Committee shall be one as constituted under Section 20(3) of the Act.”
- It remains our stand that since the 7 respondents in the writ petition filed do not enjoy the
confidence of the Residents Assembly, they cannot represent the Residents Assembly of
Auroville.
- Additionally, the single bench order of 1.8.2024 reiterates that the directions issued by the
division bench on 4th September 2023 will govern the management and functioning of
Auroville. The court recognizes that:
“The Residents' Assembly may carry out its functions as provided in Sections 18, 19, and 20 of
the Auroville Foundation Act without any interference.”
- To reiterate, Section 20 of the AVF Act, 1988, provides for the Working Committee of the
Residents' Assembly of Auroville to be elected by the Residents' Assembly alone. This order
mandates no interference with the Residents' Assembly and their Working Committee.
Therefore, we are advised to state that the single judges order would be in conflict with the
judgement of the division bench.
In light of these points, we are taking steps and measures to ensure that clarity is restored on
this matter.
Sincerely,
Page 3 of 3
The Working Committee of the Residents' Assembly of the Auroville Foundation
Aravinda Maheshwari, Chali Grinnell, Ilayabharathy Somasundaram, Mael Shanti Vidal (TOS),
Matthieu Gardelle, Prashant Hedao, Valli Senthilkumar