क्या CSI की आंतरिक आदेश पर भी लिखित याचिका दायर हो सकती है? मदरास हाई कोर्ट ने बड़ी बेंच का अनुरोध किया

Can Writ Petition Lie Against Church Of South India’s Internal Communications Without Public Element? Madras High Court Refers To Larger Bench

The Division Bench doubted the correctness of D. Bright Joseph v. Church of South India (2024), noting that the Supreme Court had dismissed the challenge to that ruling while expressly keeping the question of law open.

The Madras High Court has requested the Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench to reconsider whether a writ petition can lie against an internal communication issued by the Church of South India to one of its Dioceses when the action involves no public duty or public element.

The Court was hearing a batch of writ appeals challenging a Single Judge’s common order appointing a retired High Court Judge to administer and conduct elections to the Tirunelveli Diocesan Council. The Single Judge had held the writ petitions maintainable by relying on the Full Bench decision in D. Bright Joseph v. Church of South India (2024).

A Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel observed: “The question of law is whether ‘a Writ Petition would lie against internal communication of the Church of South India to its Diocese where there is no public duty or public element involved and if so, to what extent/under what circumstances, such Writs would lie?’”

The Bench, accordingly, directed the Registry "to place this judgment before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice with a request that a Larger Bench may be formed to re-examine the answer to the aforementioned question of law by the Full Bench reported in 2024 (2) CTC 369, in the case of D.Bright Joseph -vs.- Church of South India.”

Senior Advocate V. Prakash appeared for the Church of South India Synod, while Senior Advocate V. Prabhakar appeared for the writ petitioners. Advocate P.P. Alwin Balan appeared for the Tirunelveli Diocese and its office-bearers.

Background

The term of the Tirunelveli Diocesan Council had expired without elections being conducted for the succeeding term. The Church of South India Synod thereafter issued an internal communication appointing an Administrative Committee to manage the Diocese temporarily and complete its election process.

Members of the congregation challenged the communication through writ petitions. The Single Judge held the petitions maintainable in view of the Full Bench ruling in D. Bright Joseph v. Church of South India (2024) and appointed a retired High Court Judge to administer and conduct the elections.

The Full Bench in D. Bright Joseph had held that the Church of South India was amenable to writ jurisdiction where the disputed action directly affected the educational institutions or hospitals administered by it. The appeals questioned whether that ruling extended to an internal Church communication concerning the administration and elections of a Diocese.

Court’s Observations

The Division Bench observed that even where a private body performs some public functions, every action taken by that body does not become amenable to judicial review. The action under challenge must itself contain a public law element or bear a direct nexus with the discharge of a public duty.

The Court referred to St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava (2023), where the Supreme Court distinguished between a body’s public functions and decisions confined to private or contractual affairs.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Bench noted: “Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226.”

The Court observed that the essential inquiry was not merely whether the Church of South India administered schools, colleges or hospitals, but whether the particular communication challenged in the writ petition possessed a public element.

The Bench recorded that neither the Church of South India nor the Tirunelveli Diocese was a registered statutory body. Their Constitutions and internal rules were also not registered with or controlled by any statutory authority, while their office-bearers were not public servants.

The Court found that the Synod’s decision to appoint an Administrative Committee for conducting Diocesan elections arose from its internal Constitution and was not controlled by any statute.

The Bench remarked: “The Church of South India is not a registered body. The Tirunelveli Diocese is not a registered body. The members are bound by their faith. They have to maintain a discipline towards the Church. The Constitution is not registered under any authority. The Rules and Regulations of the Tirunelveli Diocese are also not registered with any authority. The Office Bearers of the Synod or of the Tirunelveli Diocese are not controlled by any statute or by any law. They are not public servants. Thus, the direction to conduct elections by appointing an Administrative Committee by the Synod is purely an internal affair.”

The Bench disagreed with the Full Bench’s reasoning that elections to Church bodies would become subject to writ jurisdiction merely because their outcome could affect schools and colleges administered by the Church.

The Bench noted: “The Full Bench had stated that the elections to the Synod would affect the Schools and Colleges and therefore, would be subject to Writ jurisdiction. We do not agree with that observation, which actually was a stray observation by the Full Bench. The elections are only to administer the Synod and the Tirunelveli Diocese.”

The Court relied on Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya (2019), in which the Supreme Court held that contracts of a purely private nature do not become subject to writ jurisdiction merely because statutory provisions structure them. An exception arises where the contract of service is governed or regulated by statute.

The Bench observed that the Full Bench in D. Bright Joseph (2024) had not sufficiently examined whether the Synod’s communication was statutorily controlled or itself involved a public element. It consequently expressed doubts over the correctness of the Full Bench’s reasoning.

The Court also noted that the Supreme Court, while declining to interfere with D. Bright Joseph in Vimal Sukumar v. D. Bright Joseph (2024), had expressly kept the question of law open.

Conclusion

The High Court directed its Registry to place the judgment before the Chief Justice with a request to constitute a Larger Bench to reconsider whether a writ petition is maintainable against an internal communication issued by the Church of South India to its Diocese in the absence of a public duty or public element.

Cause Title: The Church of South India v. G. Selvakumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:4018)

Appearances

Petitioners: Senior Advocate V. Prabhakar, assisted by Advocate N.J. Ramachandar and instructed by Advocates K. Kaviarasan and V.S. Kishore Kumar

Respondents: Senior Advocate V. Prakash, instructed by Ajmal Associates; Advocates P.P. Alwin Balan, S. Chellapandian, M. Kamalanathan and T. Pon Ramkumar; Additional Government Pleader S.I. Muthiah; Central Government Standing Counsel C. Nandagopal; Advocate Chevanan Mohan, instructed by King & Partridge

Powered by Nyaya 247 News