Church Of South India Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Except When Discharging Functions Of The Clergy: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice R Subramanian, Justice PT Asha, and Justice N Senthilkumar also emphasized that when the CSI was performing functions outside the above public duty, ie, when it was engaged in discharging the functions of the clergy, such functions would be outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“From the conspectus of the above principles and judgments which describe a public duty, it is amply evident that the respondent apart from its ecclesiastical functions, is running and managing various schools, colleges and hospitals. The respondent is definitely discharging the public function and if any action taken by them which is detrimental to the discharge of this duty, a writ petition would definitely be maintainable,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea by an elected Diocesan Council member of the Madras Diocese seeking directions for conducting and streamlining the electoral process and administration of the CSI. Alleging malaise in the management, the petitioner submitted that the persons who were managing the affairs of the educational institutions under the CSI lacked integrity and had penetrated into the management by manipulating the election process.

It was further argued that though the constitution of CSI does not permit amendment for extension of age, the same was being attempted now to ensure that the corrupt members continued to take part in the electoral process.

The respondents, however, challenged the maintainability of the writ and argued that the petitioner was neither an affected party nor was able to prove that there was a violation of the fundamental rights.

The court observed that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court had the power to issue directions to any person or authority for the enforcement of rights conferred by Part III and for other purposes. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Dwarka Nath Vs Income Tax Officer, the court noted that the term “any person or authority” under Article 226 requires a liberal interpretation where such person or authority performs a public function. The court added that the scope of mandamus is determined by the nature of the duty to be enforced and not the identity of the authority against whom it is sought to be achieved.

The court also observed that the activities of the respondents could impair the standards of education in the institution and since these persons constituted the educational agency, the writ was maintainable.

The court added that since the educational institutions under the CSI were bound by statutory regulations, they were amenable to writ jurisdiction. The court thus observed that if any acts of the respondents are found to lower the standards of education and medical services, it could be challenged by any person invoking the rights under Article 226 of the constitution.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Thankasivan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.V.Prakash Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Adrian D.Rozario

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 95

Case Title: D Bright Joseph v Church of South India and Others

Case No: W.P.No.304272 of 2022