Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 965

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.
D. Bright Joseph – Petitioner
Versus
Church of South India (CSI) – Respondent
W.P. No. 30472 of 2022, W.M.P. Nos. 29904, 29906, 31031 of 2022
Decided On : 29-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S. Thankasivan.
For the Respondents: V. Prakash, Adrian D. Rozario, V. Prakash, Gautam S. Raman.

IMPORTANT POINT
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private body like the Church of South India when it discharges public duties through its educational and healthcare institutions, particularly in cases involving allegations of corruption and manipulation in electoral processes.

Headnote:
Writ Jurisdiction - Church of South India - Article 226 - The court discussed the applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to the Church of South India (CSI), determining that despite being a private body, the CSI discharges public duties through its educational and healthcare institutions. The court emphasized that actions affecting the quality of education and public services can be challenged under Article 226, particularly when there are allegations of corruption and manipulation in the electoral processes governing these institutions.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed by an elected member of the Diocesan Council of the Madras Diocese, alleging corruption and manipulation in the management of the Church of South India (CSI) and its electoral processes. The petitioner claimed that individuals lacking integrity were infiltrating the management through manipulated elections, which jeopardized the administration of thousands of educational institutions and hospitals run by the CSI.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CSI, while a private body, performs public functions through its educational and healthcare services, thus making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court upheld the petitioner's claims regarding the manipulation of elections and the need for integrity in the management of public institutions.
Issues: The primary issue was whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be maintained against the CSI, a private body, and to what extent such jurisdiction applies to internal disputes and electoral processes within the church.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the CSI, by managing educational and healthcare institutions, discharges public duties, thus actions affecting these functions can be challenged under Article 226. The court emphasized that the public interest in maintaining the integrity of these institutions justifies judicial intervention.
Final Decision: The court ruled that the writ petition was maintainable and directed that the electoral processes within the CSI be conducted in accordance with its constitution, ensuring that individuals with questionable integrity do not manipulate the elections.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 3 to 6 from functioning as office bearers of the respondents 1 and 2 institutions and consequently appoint a former Judge or Judges of this Hon'ble Court as Administrator (s) for managing the affairs of the respondents 1 and 2 and to conduct the election for the office bearers as well as the executive committee of the CSI Synod for the term of three years commencing from 14.01.2023 in accordance with the constitution of the 1st respondent and its constituent Dioceses within a time to be fixed by this Court.

1. 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 jurisdi