- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- AI
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- ESG
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- AI
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- ESG
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Amendment To The Indian Trusts Act
The Indian Trusts Act 1882 (the "Act") is theonly Indian legislation that regulates privatetrusts ("trusts") in India. This archaic,234-year-old legislation, which was passed incolonial times, was finally amended in 2016by the Indian Trusts (Amendment) Act ("AmendmentAct"), but unfortunately, the scope of the amendmentwas narrow and confined to only one aspect.An archaic,...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to 
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Indian Trusts Act 1882 (the "Act") is the
only Indian legislation that regulates private
trusts ("trusts") in India. This archaic,
234-year-old legislation, which was passed in
colonial times, was finally amended in 2016
by the Indian Trusts (Amendment) Act ("Amendment
Act"), but unfortunately, the scope of the amendment
was narrow and confined to only one aspect.
legislation was finally
amended this year; however,
the amendment pertains
only to one aspect...
Section 20 of the Act outlines the manner in which surplus
funds of a private trust may be invested for future use
of the trust. Before the amendment, the Act listed seven
categories of securities in which trust money could be
invested, including promissory notes, debentures, stocks
or other securities issued by prescribed authorities. Such
authorities comprised some pre-Independence references, including securities issued by the United Kingdom. In
principle, these categories permitted investment only in
securities or debt instruments that had explicit or implicit
government guarantee on their creditworthiness.
The 8th category provided an overall enabling provision
that allowed investments by trusts in securities that were
(i) expressly authorized by trust deeds, (ii) authorized
by the Central Government in notification in the official
gazette or (iii) authorized by any Indian High Court by
a prescribed rule in this respect. In case trust deeds
were silent on the kind of security in which trustees
could invest, the process of obtaining approval from the
Central Government was on a "case to case" basis, and
we understand rarely ever given, if at all. Importantly,
the Central Government was only permitted to give approval for investment in securities as requested by
the trusts and not to notify the securities or class of
securities by itself.
critical assessment of the
recent 2016 amendment to
the archaic Indian Trusts Act,
1882. It explores whether the
amendments provide the
trustee with greater flexibility
to take decisions on the
investment of trust money
and also questions if the
amendment was a wasted
opportunity to undertake
more substantial reform to
this outdated legislation.
In pursuance of the long-pending recommendation
of the 17th Law Commission Report 1961, the
Amendment Act was passed to amend Section 20 of
the Act with the intention to provide trustees with
greater autonomy and flexibility to take decisions
on the investment of trust money; enable the Central
Government to notify securities or class of securities
for investment by trusts and remove outdated
provisions. The Parliament removed the first seven
categories, retaining only the amended version of
the said 8th category. Section 20 now provides that
trustees can invest the surplus trust money "in
any of the securities or class of securities expressly
authorized by the instrument of trust or as specified
by the Central Government, by notification in the
Official Gazette". Moreover, with the perspective
that Indian high courts may not be best positioned
to authorize investments for trusts and with the
intention of obtaining uniformity, the Amendment
Act has omitted their power to authorize investments
in securities.
The Amendment Act has been seen as an enabler
for the Central Government to notify a class of
securities as eligible for investment in trusts. It is a
major move to facilitate trusts to invest in securities,
mainly listed shares and specified debt securities.
This is a welcome step, especially when Indian
family businesses are increasingly looking to set up
dynastic trusts to hold their business assets. Though
well-drafted trust deeds generally specify permissible
investments, most trusts are silent on this aspect.
Hence, the Amendment Act will provide clarity and
flexibility in such cases when trust deeds are silent.
As mentioned, this amendment only touches upon
one narrow aspect of the outdated Act. All other
provisions do not reflect changes that have occurred
in both law and practice over the last century. As
the use of trusts becomes more prevalent in India,
with both substantial personal wealth and large
companies being housed in trusts, the government
should look at either substantially amending or
replacing this legislation to bring it on par with
modern 21st-century trust law principles and market
practice. Given the time taken to amend just the said
section, one remains eternally hopeful of when these
changes may occur.
Disclaimer – The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and are purely informative in nature.