The Kerala High Court has held that a writ appeal isn’t viable against a congregation for its refusal to solemnize marriage. The Division Bench maintained a solitary seat judgment that had held that no open obligation or open capacity is being completed by a Church by solemnization of marriage between two individuals from the bishopric.
The issue brought up in the writ request documented by a few was whether the Church or the Diocese, of which the candidates are individuals, can decline to solemnize their marriage. The single appointed authority, Justice VG Arun, while excusing the request, had held that, even in situations where an individual, group of people or a foundation is seen as playing out an open obligation, a writ would not mislead implement simply private law rights, which on account of the applicants is solemnization of their marriage. The Bench, in the wake of alluding to different points of reference in such manner, and furthermore observing the capacities did by the Church, saw that solemnization of marriage isn’t an obligation of the State or a position, and in this way, Church can be supposed to play out an open obligation or open capacity of the State.
The Court concurred with the dispute taken by the Church that, while solemnizing a marriage, isn’t playing out any open obligation or open capacity or a legal obligation, only on the grounds that the Christian Marriage Act, 1872 recommends a method, and that without anyone else would not bring the Church inside the ambit of a State or instrumentality of State, inside the domain of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Church can’t be pronounced as a State or as a power or instrumentality of the State. Claim is excused.
Case name: Santhosh Kumar S. vs Church of South India