Registrar of Societies can’t adjudicate civil disputes amongst members of clubs: Karnataka High Court

The High Court of Karnataka has issued guidelines on the exercise of power to conduct enquiries by the Registrar of Societies, while ruling that the statutory power cannot be used to adjudicate private civil disputes between members of clubs registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act (KSR Act), 1960.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions while partly allowing a petition filed by the Cosmopolitan Club, Jayanagar.

Making a distinction

The court drew a clear distinction between the statutory power of the Registrar under Section 25 of the KSR Act to examine a society’s “constitution, working and financial condition” and the adjudication of private disputes.

While the Registrar can investigate genuine financial irregularities or statutory violations, he cannot assume the role of a civil court to decide which rival faction has the better right to control the management or hold office, the court said.

While issuing general guidelines for the Registrar to exercise power under Section 25 of the Act, the court directed that the Registrar must independently apply his mind before initiating a suo motu enquiry, rather than acting automatically on a complaint. The notice must specify with reasonable clarity which aspect of the society’s constitution, working or finances is being examined, the court said.

No parallel adjudication

Crucially, the court ruled that the Registrar cannot undertake a parallel adjudication of issues already pending before a civil court. However, the court clarified that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not bar the Registrar from conducting a genuine financial enquiry. The Registrar is permitted to examine financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds, as these fall squarely within the statutory field of Section 25. The court also cautioned against the use of open-ended clauses such as “other irregularities”, stating that such clauses cannot confer unlimited jurisdiction.

In the case of the petitioner club, the court found that the Registrar had indulged in an enquiry into certain issues pending before the civil court in pending suits and quashed the notice dated December 18, 2025, issued by an Enquiry Officer, which had initiated an enquiry into nine charges against the club. The charges included the suspension of office-bearers, the validity of elections, amendments to bye-laws and the opening of bank accounts.

The court directed the Registrar to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner club, confined strictly to matters within the statutory framework, excluding issues that require adjudication of private civil rights and subjects related to pending suits.