The central legal point established in the judgment is that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain suits for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, and that Canon Law is not applicable in India.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This miscellaneous second appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC against the order dtd. 9/3/2020 passed in R.A.No.64/2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs are the citizens of this country by birth and 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 is contended that there exists a sizeable population of Konkani speaking people in the town of Chikkamagaluru. The plaintiffs are offering prayers at the local church situated at Chikkamagaluru town. The defendant is the religious head of the Archdiocese of Chikkamagaluru. Under the control of the defendant, all the churches in Chikkamagaluru and Hassan districts are functioning. The defendant is the head of the churches, which comes under the diocese of Chikkamagaluru and Hassan. He has been vested with the powers in relation to all matters relating to the administration of the churches. It is further contended that 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 amounts to infringement of fundamental right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India. It is also their case that on 18/8/2018, the plaintiffs have addressed a letter and requested the defendant to permit them to offer one prayer/mass prayer on Sunday at Chikkamagaluru Church in Konkani language. It is further contended that there is no response to the said request. The plaintiffs are not against offering prayers in Kannada or any other language. It is contended that there is no statute framed even during British regime which had adopted the statutory or Canon Law to the churches in India. No Law in respect of Christian churches has been framed in India and there is no statutory law. The defendant is also governed by the law of the land. Hence, prayed the Court to direct the defendant to conduct the prayers/mass prayers in Konkani language on every Sunday by allowing one mass out of three masses held on each Sunday at the discretion of the defendant at the churches situated in Chikkamagaluru and also sought the relief to direct the defendant to allow on each Sunday one time Konkani catechism classes and at least two masses in a week and one mass in Konkani in every festival mass and also sought for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from curtailing the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement and also filed an application under Sec. 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 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. In support of the application, an affidavit is also sworn to by the Bishop, Chikkamagaluru Diocese contending that with respect to religious matter, the plaintiffs have approached the Court and the same is outside the purview of civil law and it has to be handled by the religious authority of the Catholic church. The civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is also contended that as per the Canon Law, the Bishop of the Diocese is empowered to take decision with respect to the language policy. It is contended that suit is barred under Canon 221(1), 375(1), 391, 392, 393,