A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie against the Church of South India (CSI) as it is discharging public functions, including running educational institutions and hospitals, and is bound by statutory regulations.

Headnote:
Writ Petition - Church of South India - The court held that a writ petition invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie against the Church of South India (CSI) as it is discharging public functions, including running educational institutions and hospitals, and is bound by statutory regulations. The court emphasized the need for quality education and integrity in the management of educational institutions, making the respondents amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The court clarified that the functions of the clergy are outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226.
Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner, an elected Diocesan Council member, filed the petition due to malaise in the management of CSI Synod and the 2nd respondent Association, alleging manipulation of election processes and misconduct by certain individuals in the management of educational institutions and other bodies.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents 1 and 2, including the Synod, were discharging public functions, making them amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The court clarified that the functions of the clergy are outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226.
Issues: The main issue was whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie against the Church of South India (CSI) and to what extent or circumstances such writs would lie.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents 1 and 2, including the Synod, were discharging public functions, making them amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized the need for quality education and integrity in the management of educational institutions, making the respondents amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The court clarified that the functions of the clergy are outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226.
Final Decision: The court concluded that the writ petition against respondents 1 and 2, where the action of these respondents has a direct impact on the educational institutions/hospitals being run by them, is maintainable.

ORDER

(The Order of the Court was made by P.T.ASHA,J)

This writ petition is placed for our consideration on account of the divergent views taken by two division benches of our Court regarding the maintainability of a writ petition against the Church of South India.

2. The Division Bench by its order dated 03.04.2014 in W.A(MD) Nos.212 and 335 of 2014 had upheld the order passed by the single Judge allowing the vacate injunction petition filed by the respondents and dismissing the petitions seeking injunction and ordering restitution ante; i.e; the stage prior to the passing of the interim order. The petition to implead proposed parties was also allowed. The Division Bench had set out the question for consideration as follows:-

“Whether the learned Judge was right in ordering restitution while dismissing the writ petition”

The Bench upheld the order and has issued directions for the conduct of the election. Thereby the Bench had given its stamp of approval to the invocation of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Church of South India, the first respondent herein.

3. Another Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated

30.05.2017 in W.A(MD) No.540 of 2017 has observed as follows:

“15.The diocese is a private body but not discharging any public duty. The appointments of the staffs of the institution by the diocese and receiving funds from the government under minority aided schemes are different from the internal election dispute. In the present case the petitioner is seeking a prayer to issue Writ of Mandamus by directing election to the diocese is not at all maintainable and no such direction can be given to the private individual by invoking extraordinary power conferred to this court 12 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The diocese is a private body not discharging public duty and internal disputes between two groups with regard to the administrative dispute cannot be resolved in this writ petition.”

This Division Bench categorically held that a writ would not lie against the CSI.

4. Thereafter a learned Single Judge of this Court in a Batch of writ petitions, W.P(MD) Nos.21134 of 2017 etc., by order dated 05.08.2019 held that since the Diocese was running several institutions, hospitals and Aided institutions etc, they were discharging public functions. A dispute relating to these were amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The learned Judge had however clarified that matters relating to the elections to the Diocese Council and the constitution of the various branches of committees of the CSI falls outside the scope of the writ jurisdiction. The learned Judge had appointed an Administrator and issued a slew of directions to the Administrator for running the Diocese.

5. This order of the learned single Judge has been upheld by another Division Bench by its order dated 25.02.2020 in the batch of writ appeals. W.A(MD)Nos.878 of 2019 etc.,. The Bench upheld the order by observing that the orders of Court would directly affect the interests of hundreds of educational institutions and they had upheld the appointment of the Administrator and the directions issued to them. Thereby this Division Bench has also allowed the institution of a writ petition against the first respondent herein.

6. Therefore, the short question placed for reference before us is:

“Would a writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India lie against the CSI which is only a private body and if so to what extent /

circumstances such writs would lie.”

7. Before venturing to answer the reference, it would be useful to briefly touch upon the facts of the writ petition that has given rise to this reference.

8. The writ petitioner, who is the elected Diocesan Council member of the Madras Diocese in which capacity he had functioned for several terms and also a member of the first respondent-CSI Synod Council, has filed this writ petition for conducting and streamlining the elect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document