Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Hear Individual Suits By Catholics To Offer Prayers In Their Own Language At Church: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an Appellate court order holding that civil courts have jurisdiction to hear a suit filed in individual capacity by few Catholics, seeking a direction to the Religious head of the church to allow them to offer prayers/mass prayers in Konkani Language.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the second appeal preferred by Diocese of Chikkamagaluru and said,

“Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of worshipping in the church in a particular language. It is the contention that there are 42 Parishes of Chikkamagaluru and out of which Parishes of different places are also allowed to do the prayer in different languages and the same is disputed by the appellant herein. When such being the case, the same has to be decided only in full fledged trial and not at the initial stage of considering the averments made in the plaint.”

The plaintiff Lancy J Narona and others had approached the civil court stating that they are residing at Chikkamagaluru town. They are Christian Catholics and their mother tongue is Konkani. They follow the language and traditions of Konkani speaking Catholics.

It was said the plaintiffs have not been allowed to offer prayers/mass prayers in their language i.e., Konkani. Under Indian Constitution, Konkani is a recognized language and finds place at the 9th entry of 8th Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is their constitutional religious right to offer their prayers in the church in their own language. The act of the defendant (Archdiocese of Chikkamagaluru) amounts to infringement of fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the Canon Law has not been recognized by the Constitution of India.

The defendants opposed the suit by filing its written statement and also filed an application under Section 9 and Order I Rule 8 and also under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit as it is barred by law. As well as no cause of action and for not obtaining permission from the Court to file representative suit in the interest of justice.

The trial court agreed with the defendants and concluded that Canon Law is applicable and the defendant is following the same. Accordingly, it had said the Law (Cannon) is absolutely necessary for the church. The Trial Court also relied upon Section 6 of the Law and having considered the same held that when there is any bar, the Code of Canon does not apply. Canon 6 read with Section 9 of CPC is clear that there is a bar under CPC to decide the religious rights except relating to the powers of office or right to property and thus impliedly the Cannon Law applicability is confirmed, trial court said.

It also held that only four people speaking Konkani cannot seek that the prayer be conducted in Konkani. It said if there was large number of people affected by the prayers in Kannada language, then they could have made a representation before the concerned authority by filing a requisition.

This order was challenged before the Appellate court which held that the civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the very contention of the defendant in the written statement as well as application that the suit is barred under the provisions of Canon Law cannot be accepted.

It also held that even a single member of the community is entitled to bring a suit in respect of his right to offer a prayer and the approach of Trial Court that the suit was not filed in representative capacity is erroneous.

This order came to be challenged in a second appeal by the Diocese. It was argued that plaintiffs have not been prevented from worship but they cannot insist to conduct their prayer in a particular language. It was contended that offering prayer in Konkani is not a civil right and it amounts to a practice of ritual and no fundamental right is violated.

Findings

At the outset, the bench noted that Canon Law is not recognized but the Trial Court framed the point for consideration with regard to the applicability of Canon Law and based on that relief was refused. In this context it agreed with plaintiff's contention that while entertaining the application with regard to the maintainability, the Court has to look into the averments of the plaint and the defence cannot be considered while considering the averments made in the plaint with regard to the maintainability and for rejection.

It observed,

“The very contention of the appellant’s counsel that it amounts to a matter of rituals, cannot be accepted...It is very clear that the Canon Law is not recognized but the Trial Court has framed the point for consideration with regard to the applicability of Canon Law and based on the Canon Law only comes to the conclusion that the suit itself is not maintainable. Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of worshipping in the church in a particular language.”

It also noted that even though the defendant had urged before the Trial Court that he will not press question of cause of action, the Trial Court erroneously made the approach without the pleadings which has not been pressed into service.

“Hence, the First Appellate Court rightly reversed the finding of the Trial Court having considered the material on record and came to the conclusion that the very defence taken by the appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law and the matter requires to be considered in accordance with law,” High Court said and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Diocese of Chikkamagaluru And Lancy J Narona & Others

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.98 OF 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 203

Date of Order: 26-05-2023

Appearance: Advocate Sachin B S for appellant.

Advocate Manjunath Prasad H N for Respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment