Inculcating Religious Feelings Amongst Members Of A Particular Community Not A Public Function Or Public Duty: Telangana HC Reiterates

Dismissing a plea by former employees of certain public trusts/charities– some of whom are stated to be engaged in imparting education and religious teachings– alleging misappropriation of funds, the Telangana High Court reiterated that inculcating religious feelings among members of a particular community cannot be equated to public function or discharge of a public duty. The court further reiterated that even imparting education, per se, will not pull the respondent trusts/charities within the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution unless it can be shown that they discharge a public duty which has a public law element. The court was hearing a plea by former employees of various religious organizations–including Operation Mobilisation India whose activities were focused on "spreading the teachings of Jesus Christ", Good Shepherd Community Society–whose objects include imparting spiritual teachings, setting up primary health and literary centres, as well as an International Charity registered under The Companies Act, 1956 of England and Wales. The petitioners, who claimed to be whistle-blowers against the directors of these various trusts, for mismanagement and misappropriation of funds, alleged that they had been illegally terminated from service without inquiry, and filed the writ petition seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to administer and manage the affairs of these organizations, amongst other reliefs.Perusing through the facts Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya in her order examined whether the respondent trusts in question would fall under the definition of State. With respect to “Operation Mobilisation India” (respondent no. 6) the court said that the same indicated that the activities of the respondent are voluntary in nature with a focus on spreading the teachings of Jesus Christ. "Admittedly, the respondent No.6/Trust does not receive any financial assistance from the State and would, therefore, not fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution," the court said. It further said, "The cause of action pleaded revolves around personal rights and agenda and does not involve any public law element: Ramakrishna Mission Vs. Kago Kunya and Lakhichand Marotrao Dhoble Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner, Civil Lines, Nagpur. In the latter case, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the objects of a Public Trust which engaged in religious activities to be purely of a voluntary nature without any financial assistance from the State. The Court opined that inculcating religious feelings amongst members of a particular community cannot be equated to a public function or discharge of a public duty. A public function is generally for achieving a collective benefit for the public or a section of the public with a flavour of social or economic affairs in public interest: Binny Ltd. Vs. S. Sadasivan," the high court said.With respect to "Operation Mercy India Foundation" (respondent no. 7) the court while referring to Supreme Court's decision in St. Mary's Education Society v/s Rajendra Prasad Bhargava noted that the "mere fact that this respondent is imparting education" will not make the it amenable to writ jurisdiction in the absence of a public law element which is quintessential to the maintainability of the writ petition. It thereafter said:“Imparting education, per se, will not pull the respondents within the stranglehold (in a punitive sense) of Article 226 of the Constitution unless the respondents can be shown to discharge a public duty with an attending public law element or that there is a pervasive State control in their day-to-day affairs. Although the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra) opined that the tests formulated in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi are not a rigid set of principles, the question in each case would be whether the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government in the light of the cumulative facts as established.”The court further went on to observe that writ petition was filed for "settling of a personal score" as it did not make out a case that the respondent trusts/charities were amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. The court further observed that in the present case, the reliefs claimed are entirely in the realm of private law and the petitioners, as ex-employees, are seeking reinstatement.The bench also noted that the petitioners had approached the Industrial Tribunal along with 18 other employees against the termination of their employment. The request for re-instatement was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal In July 2023 against which a plea was pending in the high court. It also noted that the petitioners had filed similar cases, before the NCLT and Industrial Tribunal and failed to get a favorable order; and thus filing of the present petition would be hit by res judicata and constructive res judicata.On respondent...

Inculcating Religious Feelings Amongst Members Of A Particular Community Not A Public Function Or Public Duty: Telangana HC Reiterates

Fareedunnisa Huma

Tags