Madras High Court Suggests Bringing In Statutory Body To Regulate Church Properties, Seeks Centre's Stand

Justice N Satish Kumar noted that matters of trusts, trustees, charities and religious endowments and religious institutions fall under the Concurrent list and thus there was no bar for the Central Government or the State government to bring in a legislation to this effect.

The court added that a Statutory Board could be established to make the institutions more accountable and to regulate their affairs. The court also noted that while "charitable endowments of Hindus and Muslims are subject to statutory regulation" however no such comprehensive regulation exists for endowments of Christians; the only scrutiny/oversight over the affairs of these institutions is by way of a suitunder Section 92 CPC.

“Trusts & trustees, charities & charitable institutions, charitable & religious endowments & religious institutions fall under List III (Concurrent List) in Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. As there is no Central Legislation holding the field, there cannot be any embargo for the Union or the State Governments to bring about a legislation in the light of the circumstances prevalent in this regard. For to make the institution more accountable, there must be a Statutory Board to regulate the affairs of the administration and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for both sides have no quarrel on these issues,” the court observed.

The court noted that of late, there was an increase in litigations related to church properties where the courts have observed mismanagement of church properties and its funds. The court added that since these institutions were involved in public functions in the form of educational institutions, hospitals etc and since their functioning would affect the public at large, it was necessary to protect and safeguard the assets and funds of the institutions.

“This Court has seen various instance of mismanagement and misuse of the Church properties and it funds. Several matters are litigated before this Court either as petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or by way of suits under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Judicial notice can easily be taken note of the fact that filing of these type of cases become yearly affair with rival factions belonging to various Churches litigating against each other. To strengthen the positions, in the administration, only the Church funds have been used in all the litigations. The Churches not only have the vast properties but also educational institutions. In the process, the institutions which these persons ie., the so called elected persons, who are said to be helm of affairs, are supposed to protect and safeguard suffer administratively and financially as their funds are drained to fuel the power struggle. To alleviate this problem, it is a regular practice of this Court in appointing Administrators in the litigation of various Diocese from time to time as a temporary measure. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, it is high time that a permanent solution is required. It cannot be lost sight that these institutions performed and discharged several public functions like running educational institutions, hospital etc., which affect the public at large. Their assets and funds require protection and must be safeguarded,” the court said.

The court thus suo motu impleaded the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India and the Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu to explain their stand in this regard.

Background

The court was hearing a plea by one Byju Nizeth Paul challenging an order of the Bishop- Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Kanyakumari Diocese of Church of South India through which his appointment as the Secretary-Correspondent of the Scott Christian College (Autonomous), Nagercoil was stayed. The Bishop had also assumed charge as Correspondent in charge of the College.

The petitioner argued that as per Part II Rule (XI) of the CSI Constitution, the bishop could stay the proceedings of the Executive Council only if the resolution was against the Constitution and Practice of the Diocese. He pointed out that the rules were not properly exercised. He added that the decision was taken based on complaints made by 12 Assistant Professors whose applications were not forwarded by him, while he was working as Secretary, which were put against the petitioner.

On the other hand, the Bishop argued that the action was in consonance with the Constitution of the CSI Kanyakumari Diocese and thus, interference was not warranted.

The court, however observed while the Constitution gave powers to the Bishop to stay the proceedings, such a provision could not be given expansive construction. The court noted that the constitution did not authorise the Bishop to assume extra power and thus he could not assume charge of Correspondent in charge.

The court also noted that as per the Constitution, the Bishop was to place the matter before the higher body in the next meeting. The court noted that the decision of whether petitioner's selection was against the Constitution was to be decided by the Diocesan Council and thus, the Bishop was directed to call for a Diocesan Council meeting within 2 months which could take a decision after hearing the petitioner.

"The stay granted by this Court by an order dated 02.08.2024 in respect of the proceedings by which, the Bishop had appointed himself as Correspondent in-charge is extended until further orders. Similarly, the interim order passed by this Court dated 28.08.2024 is also extended until further orders. The Diocesan Council shall decide the issue within a period of two months," it added.

Case No: WP(MD) 17949 of 2024