Bar and Bench: Mumbai: Wednesday, 23 August 2023.
The Court quashed a 2014 order of the Goa State Information Commission which had held that the Archbishop, in his capacity as the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa, is a public authority.
The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court last week held that the Archbishop of Goa and Daman and Diu is not a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and is not bound to disclose information under the Act [The Archbishop Patriarch Of Goa, Daman & Diu vs State Information Commission].
Single-judge Justice Mahesh Sonak quashed an order passed by the Goa State Information Commission (GSIC) on December 16, 2014, which had held that the Archbishop, in his capacity as the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, is a “public authority”, within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
"The GSIC should have examined whether the petitioner, when acting in his capacity as a Patriarchal Tribunal, could be held to be an authority or body established or constituted by a law made by the Parliament or the State Legislature. The GSIC posed this question but the same was never answered, or in any case, never adequately answered," the Court said.
It further stated that reasoning of the GSIC that the Patriarchal Bishop gets his authority from Decree No.35461, issued by the Government of Portugal and later continued by the Government of Goa, is neither here nor there.
Such reasoning does not squarely address the issue of whether the Archbishop, acting as a Patriarchal Tribunal (church courts dealing with marriages and divorces), can be said to be an authority or a body established or constituted by a law made by the parliament or State legislature, the Court explained.
The order was passed on a petition by the Goa Archbishop that challenged the GSIC's directive to release information about the appointment letters of the Archbishops of Goa and Bombay, accreditation letters sent by the Vatican and permission to inspect the marriage annulment registers.
The RTI applicant Antonia Abel sought the information on the ground that under the Portuguese Civil Code (PCC) applicable in Goa, orders and judgements passed by the Patriarchal Tribunal have civil recognition.
The Court noted that the Patriarchal Tribunal is neither established nor constituted under Decree No.35461 (Law of Canonical Marriage) or the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962.
"Merely because Article 19 of the Decree No.35461 gives recognition to orders of annulment made by the Ecclesiastical Courts and Tribunals like the Patriarchal Tribunal, it cannot be concluded that Decree No.35461 establishes or constitutes the Ecclesiastical Courts and Tribunals like the Patriarchal Tribunal," the judgment underscored.
The act of giving recognition to the decisions and judgments of the Ecclesiastical Courts and tribunals like the Patriarchal Tribunal is not the same thing as establishing or constituting the Ecclesiastical Courts or tribunals like the Patriarchal Tribunal, the single-judge added.
"Similarly, the Canon Law or the Canonical Law cannot be regarded as the law made by the Parliament of India or the law made by the State Legislature. Merely because some of the decisions and judgments of the Ecclesiastical Courts and Tribunals constituted under the Canon Law may have acquired limited recognition under the State Law or the Parliamentary Law, that by itself would not be sufficient to hold that such Ecclesiastical Courts or Tribunals like the Patriarchal Tribunal are authorities or bodies established or constituted by a law made by the Parliament or the State Legislature," the Court held.
It, therefore, concluded that the GSIC erred in its findings and quashed its order.
Senior Advocate JE Coelho Pereira along with advocates B Fernandes and Sagar Rivankar appeared for the Archbishop.
Senior Advocate JP Mulgaonkar along with advocate Deeksha Sharma represented the RTI applicant.
[Read Judgment]
The Court quashed a 2014 order of the Goa State Information Commission which had held that the Archbishop, in his capacity as the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa, is a public authority.
The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court last week held that the Archbishop of Goa and Daman and Diu is not a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and is not bound to disclose information under the Act [The Archbishop Patriarch Of Goa, Daman & Diu vs State Information Commission].
Single-judge Justice Mahesh Sonak quashed an order passed by the Goa State Information Commission (GSIC) on December 16, 2014, which had held that the Archbishop, in his capacity as the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, is a “public authority”, within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
"The GSIC should have examined whether the petitioner, when acting in his capacity as a Patriarchal Tribunal, could be held to be an authority or body established or constituted by a law made by the Parliament or the State Legislature. The GSIC posed this question but the same was never answered, or in any case, never adequately answered," the Court said.
It further stated that reasoning of the GSIC that the Patriarchal Bishop gets his authority from Decree No.35461, issued by the Government of Portugal and later continued by the Government of Goa, is neither here nor there.
Such reasoning does not squarely address the issue of whether the Archbishop, acting as a Patriarchal Tribunal (church courts dealing with marriages and divorces), can be said to be an authority or a body established or constituted by a law made by the parliament or State legislature, the Court explained.
The order was passed on a petition by the Goa Archbishop that challenged the GSIC's directive to release information about the appointment letters of the Archbishops of Goa and Bombay, accreditation letters sent by the Vatican and permission to inspect the marriage annulment registers.
The RTI applicant Antonia Abel sought the information on the ground that under the Portuguese Civil Code (PCC) applicable in Goa, orders and judgements passed by the Patriarchal Tribunal have civil recognition.
The Court noted that the Patriarchal Tribunal is neither established nor constituted under Decree No.35461 (Law of Canonical Marriage) or the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962.
"Merely because Article 19 of the Decree No.35461 gives recognition to orders of annulment made by the Ecclesiastical Courts and Tribunals like the Patriarchal Tribunal, it cannot be concluded that Decree No.35461 establishes or constitutes the Ecclesiastical Courts and Tribunals like the Patriarchal Tribunal," the judgment underscored.
The act of giving recognition to the decisions and judgments of the Ecclesiastical Courts and tribunals like the Patriarchal Tribunal is not the same thing as establishing or constituting the Ecclesiastical Courts or tribunals like the Patriarchal Tribunal, the single-judge added.
"Similarly, the Canon Law or the Canonical Law cannot be regarded as the law made by the Parliament of India or the law made by the State Legislature. Merely because some of the decisions and judgments of the Ecclesiastical Courts and Tribunals constituted under the Canon Law may have acquired limited recognition under the State Law or the Parliamentary Law, that by itself would not be sufficient to hold that such Ecclesiastical Courts or Tribunals like the Patriarchal Tribunal are authorities or bodies established or constituted by a law made by the Parliament or the State Legislature," the Court held.
It, therefore, concluded that the GSIC erred in its findings and quashed its order.
Senior Advocate JE Coelho Pereira along with advocates B Fernandes and Sagar Rivankar appeared for the Archbishop.
Senior Advocate JP Mulgaonkar along with advocate Deeksha Sharma represented the RTI applicant.
[Read Judgment]
.JPG)
.JPG)
