Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interpret Church Rules or adjudicate internal administrative disputes in absence of wilful disobedience of judicial order.

ORDER

P.Velmurugan J.

This Contempt Petition has been filed to punish the respondents for alleged willful disobedience of the common judgment dated 04.03.2008 passed by this Court in O.S.A.Nos.388, 389, 397, 398 to 406 of 2007 and 25 of 2008.

2. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, is that he is a member of the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC). According to him, the administration of the Church is governed by the Rules, 1991, which prescribe the tenure of the Church Council and the conduct of elections. It is his grievance that, in violation of the findings of this Court dated 04.03.2008, the respondents have continued to remain in office beyond the tenure prescribed under the Rules and have failed to conduct elections, thereby acting in disobedience of the order of this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment of this Court is binding on the respondents and that the administration of the Church must strictly follow the Rules. It was contended that the continuation of the respondents in office beyond the prescribed tenure and the failure to conduct elections amount to a clear violation of the order of this Court. It was further submitted that though the petitioner was not a party to the earlier proceedings, being a member of the Church, he is entitled to bring to the notice of this Court the alleged disobedience.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the present petition is not maintainable. It was argued that the petitioner, not being a party to the original proceedings, lacks locus standi to initiate contempt proceedings. It was further contended that the allegations raised concern matters of internal administration of the Church, including tenure and conduct of elections, which cannot be examined in contempt jurisdiction. It was their submission that there is no wilful or deliberate disobedience of any order of this Court.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition as well as the judgment dated 04.03.2008.

6. On a reading of the judgment dated 04.03.2008, it is evident that this Court was concerned with disputes relating to the administration of the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church and emphasised that its affairs must be conducted in accordance with the governing Rules.

7. The petitioner now raises the grievance that elections have not been conducted within the expected time and that the respondents have continued in office beyond the tenure prescribed under the Rules. In the considered view of this Court, such a grievance primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Rules to the present factual situation. Matters of this nature pertain to the internal administration of the Church and do not fall within the scope of contempt jurisdiction, which is confined to cases of clear and wilful disobedience of a judicial order.

8. The contempt jurisdiction is penal in nature and cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputes about the interpretation of Rules or to examine the correctness of administrative actions taken under them. Where the controversy turns on the working of the Rules and the tenure of office bearers, the appropriate remedy lies in substantive proceedings before the proper forum, not in contempt.

9. In the present case, this Court does not find any material to show that the respondents have acted in deliberate or wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. The allegations made b