Kerala HC upholds SN Trust Scheme modification; Secretary Vellappally Natesan may have to step down

The modification stipulates that an office bearer shall abstain from holding the office if involved in criminal offences of a breach of trust or relating to the property of the Trust and the bearer’s continuation in the office will conflict with the interest of the Trust

The modification of the Sree Narayana Trust scheme, which stipulates that an office bearer shall abstain from holding the office if he is involved in criminal offences of a breach of trust or relating to the property of the Trust and his continuation in the office is having conflict with the interest of the Trust, was approved by the Kerala High Court.

The directive of a Division Bench of the court consisting of Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Shoba Annamma Eapen may force SN Trust Secretary Vellappally Natesan to step down as cases related to allegations of misuse of the Trust funds have been booked against him. The court upheld the modification that such office bearers shall abstain from holding the office till he is discharged or acquitted in such cases.

The petitioner, Cherunniyoor V. Jayaprakash, is a member of the Board of Directors of the Trust.

The Bench noted that the trustee must not place himself in a position where his interest may conflict with his duties. The trustee has to uphold the objectives of the Trust. The very criminal prosecution can be derailed, if a trustee, implicated in criminal charges in respect of the Trust property, is permitted to have control over the Trust administration. It is not necessary to wait for the filing of the final report or the charge framed to take action against such an officer, the court held.

In such situations, the court will have to find out whether the continuation of the office bearer or the trustee will have a conflict with the interest of the Trust or is detrimental to the interest of the Trust. If the court is of the view that a fair trial will not be possible, it can ask the trustee to desist from functioning, the Bench held.

The court felt that such a clause was necessary to secure the objective and integrity of the Trust.