Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant ruling on Thursday, a full bench of the Madras High Court declared that the Church of South India (CSI), despite being a private religious entity, is subject to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

The bench of Justices R Subramanian, PT Asha, and N Senthilkumar concurred that due to the CSI's oversight of numerous educational institutions and hospitals, it is engaged in a public duty. Consequently, the judgment stated that writ petitions related to these public duties are admissible.

The matter was referred to the full bench after division benches of the high court expressed conflicting opinions regarding the maintainability of writ petitions against CSI.

In 2014, one division bench approved the invocation of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Church of South India, whereas, another division bench in 2017, held that since the diocese is a private body but not discharging any public duty, therefore, it cannot be given any direction by invoking extraordinary power conferred to the high court under Article 226.

Thereafter, in 2019, in a batch of writ petitions, another single judge bench, held that since the Diocese was running several institutions, hospitals and Aided institutions etc, they were discharging public functions, therefore, a dispute relating to these were amenable to the writ jurisdiction. However, the single judge 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.

This order was then upheld by another division bench in 2020, which allowed the institution of a writ petition against the CSI. 

Therefore, before the full bench, a question as to "whether a writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies against the CSI which is only a private body, and if so, to what extent/circumstances such writs would lie"? was placed before the high court.

The full bench held that in simple terms, public duty would mean a duty in discharge of which the State, Public or the Community at large has an interest and likewise, a public function would generally mean a function for the general public serving the public good.

It highlighted that CSI runs 2300 schools, 150 colleges and 104 hospitals in South India and its functions not only include worship and theology but also encompassing education and health care.

Further, while referring to the top court's judgment in Dwarka Nath Vs Income Tax Officer, court held that the term “any person or authority” used in Article 226 requires a liberal interpretation where such person or authority performs a public duty. 

In view of the above, the full bench held that CSI "is definitely discharging the public function and if any action taken by them which is detrimental to the discharge of this duty, a writ petition would definitely be maintainable".

"Unlike, Article 32 of the Constitution of India any person even if he is not a person aggrieved can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," court further clarified. 

Accordingly, court made the following observations:

- The public duty that CSI and the Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA) discharge falls within the contours of Article 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.

- Since the educational institutions run by CSI and CSITA, both aided as well as unaided, are bound by statutory regulations of varying degrees, they are amenable to the writ jurisdiction.

- Any act of the management who are in the administration of these institutes/hospitals likely to bring down the standards of both education as well as medical services can be challenged by any person invoking the rights under Article 226 and in that sense, CSI and CSITA would fall within the category of any person or authority as described under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

- The functions of CSI and CSITA pertaining to the maintenance of the churches and discharging functions of the clergy, are outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Case Title: D.Bright Joseph v. Church of South India (CSI) and Others