Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Judges
  • Hon'ble Thiru.Justice V. Parthiban
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Judges
  • Hon'ble Thiru.Justice V. Parthiban
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent, the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages-cum-Inspector General of Registration, to issue instructions to the second respondent, the Church of South India, Diocese of Madras, to maintain and follow the established custom of Exchange of Banns of marriages. The petitioner asserted that this custom has been followed from time immemorial among the Christian community irrespective of denomination and claimed that it has statutory protection and legal status under Section 5 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. The petitioner challenged a circular (No.V dated 17.06.2010) issued by the second respondent which did not give effect to this custom.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to file a writ petition challenging the religious activities of the second respondent, a private organisation.
  2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the second respondent in respect of the alleged failure to follow the custom of Exchange of Banns of marriages.
  3. Whether the first respondent can be directed to issue instructions to the second respondent to follow the custom of Exchange of Banns of marriages.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that the petitioner’s locus standi to file the writ petition was questionable since the issues raised pertain to the religious activities of the second respondent, a private body. The Court noted that the petitioner appeared to have included the first respondent merely as a party to maintain the writ petition. It held that the direction sought against the second respondent could not be granted because it is a private organization and the petitioner lacked the requisite legal standing to challenge its religious practices. The Court further stated that if the petitioner had any personal grievance against the second respondent, appropriate remedies were available in a proper court of law, and the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was not invocable in the present matter.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

The decision directly results in the dismissal of the petition without costs and closure of the connected miscellaneous petition. No new precedent was established, and the ruling underscores the principle that private religious bodies' internal customs are generally beyond the scope of judicial intervention under Article 226 unless the petitioner has a direct personal grievance recognized by law.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    D.Samuel Abraham v. V.Devasahayam

    1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    DATED : 06.06.2018

    CORAM :

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

    W.P.No.6982 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 D.Samuel Abraham ... Petitioner -Vs-

    1.The Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages-cum- The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department,

    Shanthome High Road, Chennai 600 028. 2.The Church of South India, Diocese of Madras,

    226, Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 018. Rep by Bishop Rt.Rev.Dr.V.Devasahayam. ... Respondents

    Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to issue suitable instructions to the 2ndrespondent to maintain and follow the established custom of Exchange of Banns of marriages being adopted and followed from time immemorial among the entire Christian Commune irrespective of the denomination they belong as such established custom has been conferred with statutory protection rather legal status has been conferred under Section 5 of Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 without giving effect to the circular No.V dated 17.06.2010 issued by the 2ndrespondent with respect to Exchange of Banns of Marriage.

    http://www.judis.nic.in

    2

    For Petitioner : Mr.Vadivel Murugan for Mr.R.G.Narendhiran

    For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rose Kamalam, Additional Government Pleader for R1 : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar for R2

    O R D E R

    Heard Mr.Vadivel Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.P.Rose Kamalam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

    2. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue suitable instructions to the 2nd respondent to maintain and follow the established custom of Exchange of Banns of marriages being adopted and followed from time immemorial among the entire Christian Commune irrespective of the denomination they belong as such established custom has been conferred with statutory protection rather legal status has been conferred under Section 5 of Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 without giving effect to the circular No.V dated 17.06.2010 issued by the 2ndrespondent with respect http://www.judis.nic.into Exchange of Banns of Marriage."

    3

    3. This Court is unable to understand what is the locus standi of the petitioner to file this writ petition as the entire issue raised in the writ petition is within the realm of religious activities of the second respondent, which is a private organisation.

    4. This Court does not understand how the writ petition can be maintained against the second respondent and how the petitioner can question the religious activities of the second respondent in regard to the issues raised in the writ petition.

    5. This Court from the materials and pleadings placed on record, is of the clear view that the petitioner has exercised a clever ploy by making the first respondent as a party in this writ petition in order to maintain the writ petition. However, the direction as sought in the writ petition cannot be granted against the second respondent which is private body. Even otherwise, this Court does not understand what is the locus standi of the petitioner to question the activities of the second respondent in this writ petition. In case, the petitioner has any personal http://www.judis.nic.in

    4

    V.PARTHIBAN,J.

    gsk grievance against the second respondent, it is always open to him to workout his remedies in the proper Court of law and he cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

    6. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is not at all maintainable and therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

    06.06.2018

    Index:Yes/No Internet :Yes gsk

    To

    The Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages-cum- The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department,

    Shanthome High Road, Chennai 600 028. http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.6982 of 2011

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    D.Samuel Abraham v. V.Devasahayam
    (Jun 6, 2018)