The recent ruling by the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court determined that the Archbishop of Goa and Daman and Diu is not considered a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), and therefore, is not obligated to disclose information under the Act. The case in question, titled The Archbishop Patriarch Of Goa, Daman & Diu vs State Information Commission, involved the quashing of an order issued by the Goa State Information Commission (GSIC) on December 16, 2014. The GSIC had previously declared that the Archbishop, in his role as the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, qualified as a “public authority” as defined by Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The High Court expressed the view that the GSIC should have examined whether the Archbishop, when acting as a Patriarchal Tribunal, could be considered an authority or body established or constituted by a law enacted by the Parliament or the State Legislature. The Court noted that the question was posed but not adequately answered by the GSIC.
The Court further explained that the reasoning provided by the GSIC, which suggested that the authority of the Patriarchal Bishop stems from Decree No.35461 issued by the Government of Portugal and subsequently continued by the Government of Goa, was not convincing. The Court clarified that this line of reasoning did not directly address the issue of whether the Archbishop, in his capacity as a Patriarchal Tribunal responsible for church courts handling matters related to marriages and divorces, could be classified as an authority or body established or constituted by a law passed by the parliament or State legislature.
The case was initiated by the Goa Archbishop, who challenged the GSIC’s directive to disclose information regarding appointment letters of the Archbishops of Goa and Bombay, accreditation letters from the Vatican, and permission to inspect marriage annulment registers. The applicant seeking information under the RTI Act, Antonia Abel, argued that orders and judgments issued by the Patriarchal Tribunal hold civil recognition under the Portuguese Civil Code (PCC) applicable in Goa.
The Court observed 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. It emphasized that simply because Article 19 of Decree No.35461 recognizes annulment orders issued by Ecclesiastical Courts and Tribunals such as the Patriarchal Tribunal, it does not imply that the decree establishes or constitutes the Ecclesiastical Courts and Tribunals themselves.
The Court further stated that the recognition of decisions and judgments by Ecclesiastical Courts and tribunals, including the Patriarchal Tribunal, does not equate to establishing or constituting those entities. The Court also clarified that Canon Law or Canonical Law cannot be regarded as legislation enacted by the Parliament of India or the State Legislature. Even if some decisions and judgments of Ecclesiastical Courts and Tribunals constituted under Canon Law have gained limited recognition under state or parliamentary laws, it is insufficient to consider such Ecclesiastical Courts or Tribunals, like the Patriarchal Tribunal, as authorities or bodies established or constituted by legislation enacted by the Parliament or the State Legislature.
As a result, the Court concluded that the GSIC erred in its findings and subsequently set aside its order.
Senior Advocate JE Coelho Pereira, along with advocates B Fernandes and Sagar Rivankar, appeared on behalf of the Archbishop, while Senior Advocate JP Mulgaonkar, along with advocate Deeksha Sharma, represented the RTI applicant.
Refference: https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/news/archbishop-of-goa-not-fall-scope-rti-act-bombay-high-court
Name – Ritika Keshari, College- Shambhunath Institute of Law, Semester – 2nd semester as a intern at Legal Vidhiya
