The High Court of Allahabad has intervened in a long-standing dispute among descendants of the late Raja Balwant Singh of Awagarh concerning control of the Balwant Educational Society, which manages the college bearing his name. A bench led by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery noted the bitter family feud had destabilised the institution’s functioning and threatened its educational mission. The dispute centred on two cousins—Sri Jitendra Pal Singh (eldest son of late Yogendra Pal Singh) and Anirudh Pal Singh (younger son of late Digviyal Pal Singh, who was elder brother of Yogendra)—each claiming the traditional title of “Raja” and thereby the right to the position of Vice-President of the Society. According to the Society’s rules, Clause 7(ii) provides that the “Raja” shall be the Vice-President. In view of the impasse, the Court observed that neither party held a legally valid title of “Raja” in contemporary context and that the family’s personal ambitions were obstructing the educational trust’s governance. The bench remarked: “Today, there is no ‘Raja’ or ‘King’. There is only a legacy.”
To ensure the continuity and proper management of the institution, the Court proposed a structured scheme under which, over a term of five years, the two cousins would each serve as Member and Vice-President of the Board of Management for equal halves of the period. It directed that the eldest brother would hold the post for the first 2½ years and the younger brother for the remaining 2½ years, with effect from 1 December 2025. While expressing hope for a consensual arrangement, the Court acknowledged the estranged relations made agreement unlikely and thus the scheduled shared tenure was imposed. Further, the Court barred both disputants from interfering in day-to-day administration or entering college premises until their respective turns began and the Board functioned uninterrupted under its existing members. The judgement stressed that the educational institution’s welfare, transcending personal rivalry, must take precedence.
In framing its order, the Court referenced an earlier observation that “petty individual interest should not score a march over larger public interest”, noting the college attracts students nationwide and any standstill in managerial functioning could detract not only locally but more broadly. The Court tasked the existing Board of Management to continue regular operations, and admonished the parties to set aside feud and work collaboratively for the institution’s betterment.
In sum, this judgment demonstrates how courts may step in and impose pragmatic governance arrangements when private educational trusts are embroiled in familial disputes that impair their functioning. By allocating leadership roles in a time-bound, rotational manner, the Court sought to reconcile competing claims, safeguard institutional integrity and prioritise the public interest inherent in the trust.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.