Christian bodies express discontent on Madras HC observation over governing Church properties
Chennai: Several priests and members of the Christian community have expressed their discontent over an observation made by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court suggesting that church properties should be governed by a statutory body similar to the Waqf Board.
Father John Kurien, a retired priest based in Coimbatore, voiced his discontent regarding the court’s remarks.
“Church properties are all registered and have proper records. This includes not just churches but also educational institutions and hospitals managed by the Church. Such a proposal could infringe on the constitutional rights of minority communities. The Constitution of India allows minority communities to establish and govern their institutions,” Father Kurien told IANS.
The observation in question arose as Justice M. Sathish Kumar of the Madras High Court sought the views of the Union and Tamil Nadu governments on making Christian institutions more accountable by bringing their assets, funds, and entities like hospitals and educational institutions under a statutory board similar to the Waqf Board.
Justice Sathish Kumar remarked: “While the charitable endowments of Hindus and Muslims are subject to statutory regulation, no such comprehensive regulation exists for Christian endowments.”
He further noted that the current oversight of these institutions is limited to litigation under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The court has also impleaded the Union Home Ministry and the Tamil Nadu government in the case.
The observations were made while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the appointment of a correspondent to Scott Christian College in Nagercoil, Kanyakumari district, and issues related to salary payments for employees.
The court observed: “Churches not only hold vast properties but also manage educational institutions. Often, these institutions, which are meant to be protected and safeguarded, suffer administratively and financially as their funds are drained by internal power struggles.”
To address these issues, the court noted that it has routinely appointed administrators in litigation involving various dioceses as a temporary measure.
Justice Sathish Kumar also pointed out that trusts, trustees, charities, charitable institutions, religious endowments, and religious institutions fall under the Concurrent List (List III) in Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution.
He stated: “There is no central legislation in this area, and there is no restriction preventing the Union or state governments from introducing legislation given the prevailing circumstances.”
To enhance accountability, he suggested the need for a statutory board to regulate the administration of church properties and institutions.
This observation has been opposed by church bodies.
Two prominent organisations — the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI) and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) — which together govern about 90 per cent of the churches in India, have already expressed their concerns.
Father Robinson Rodrigues, spokesperson for the CBCI, told the media that the organisation’s legal department is conducting a study on the implications of the observation.
However, he declined to share further details, citing that the matter is sub judice.
Father Samuel George, speaking to IANS, emphasised that church properties were purchased, not acquired through donations.
Another priest, who preferred to remain anonymous, called the court’s observation “unfortunate,” adding, “We are awaiting the final judgment and will respond accordingly.”
