Case Name: Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association (CNDTA) and others v. State of Jharkhand and others
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 5088 of 2018 and other connected writ petitions
Date of Judgment: 01 May 2025
Quorum: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The main petitioner, CNDTA (a church trust), and others filed petitions against the State of Jharkhand. They were angry because the registration department refused to register some documents. This was based on a rule called Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which came from a Bihar amendment and later was used by Jharkhand too. According to this section, the State can say some documents should not be registered if they are “against public policy.” A notification was issued in 2015 under this rule. Petitioners said this was wrong and unconstitutional.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Is Section 22-A of the Registration Act, as amended by Bihar and used by Jharkhand, constitutional?
- Was the 2015 notification under this section valid?
- Can the government decide what is against “public policy” or is that for the courts?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 22-A, Registration Act, 1908 – State can say what documents can’t be registered if against public policy
- Article 14 and Article 246, Constitution of India – Equality before law and power division between State and Centre
PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS
- The government misused Section 22-A by blocking registration of documents.
- There were no clear guidelines on what “public policy” means.
- This made things unfair and went against fundamental rights and legal certainty.
- The section gives too much power to the executive which should belong to courts.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS
- The section and notification were fine.
- Government should be allowed to block harmful or suspicious registrations.
- They said it was a policy matter, and courts should not interfere with such decisions.
ANALYSIS
The Court looked at the Supreme Court’s decision in Basant Nahata, which had struck down a similar law in Rajasthan. The top court had said:
- “Public policy” is too vague to be decided by government alone.
- Judiciary, not executive, should interpret public policy.
- Such wide power to government without clear guidelines is dangerous.
- Law must follow Constitution, and any policy is still under judicial review.
Since the Jharkhand law was same as Rajasthan’s, the High Court said it must also be unconstitutional. It cannot give unchecked powers to officials.
JUDGMENT
- Section 22-A of the Registration Act (Bihar Amendment, adopted by Jharkhand) is struck down.
- The notification dated 26.08.2015 is also cancelled.
- All actions taken by Registration officials under this notification are now set aside.
- The writ petitions are allowed, but only on this issue. Other issues are left open.
- All pending applications are disposed.
CONCLUSION
This case shows:
- Government cannot decide what is “against public policy” without proper rules.
- Courts must keep check on vague laws that give too much power.
- Laws must be clear, fair and follow the Constitution.
- Executive cannot take judicial powers.
- Just because something is labelled a policy does not mean it escapes judicial review.
This judgment protects people from being stopped unfairly from registering documents just because the State says it’s not okay.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY PRIYANKA DESHIKAN.
