Telangana High Court
Ashok Thalari vs The State Of Telangana on 21 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION No.16736 of 2026
DATE: 21.05.2026
Between:
Ashok Thalari and another
... Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Minority Welfare, Secretariat Buildings , Secretariat,
Hyderabad and 4 others
... Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Sri G.Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners; learned counsel for the respondents and perused the
material on record.
2. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“……be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, more particularly,
one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the Respondent No.4 and 5 in manipulating and tampering with
the voter list consisting of the 39th Diocesan Council members as
illegal, and arbitrary, in as much as the action of the Respondent
No.4 & 5 would vitiate the process of the proposed Bishopric
elections and impact the outcome of the election results, and,
consequently suspending the Bishopric Elections for the Diocese of
Dornakal, scheduled on 20th May 2026, and directing the
Respondent No.2 to re-notify the same by issuing a fresh
“mandate” after rectifying the defects and manipulations
committed by the Respondent No.4 under the rules in force that
govern the Respondent Organization; and grant such other relief
as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. .”
::2::
3. The petitioners are members of the Diocesan Council of the
Church of South India (CSI) Diocese of Dornakal (respondent No.4).
The present writ petition is filed challenging the elections to the
office of the Bishop of Dornakal Diocese scheduled to be held on
20.05.2026. The grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the
alleged manipulation and tampering of the voters’ list consisting of
the members of the 39th Diocesan Council members. Specific
allegations include removal of some members of the council and the
addition of others after issuance of the Moderator’s mandate
M1/03/558/2025, dated 22.12.2025 by the office of the Moderator.
The petitioners further allege that as many as 24 members of the
existing Bishop’s family and close relatives have been inducted into
the council and that the right of the respondent Nos.2 to 3 to
conduct the elections to the office of respondent No.4 is sub-judice
in W.P. No.1218 of 2026.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in answer to the query of
the Court about the maintainability of a Writ of Mandamus under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondent Nos.2 to
5 concerning the internal election of a Bishop submits as under:
That the respondent No.2 church, through it’s Synod and Diocese,
performs public duties by managing over Schools, Colleges and
Hospitals. Learned counsel relies upon the Full Bench Judgment
::3::
of the Madras High Court in D. Bright Joseph v. the Church of
South India 1. It is further contended that the process of electing a
Bishop, who heads a Diocese administering these institutions
directly impacts the quality of education and healthcare falling
under Article 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India. The change
in the electoral college after the issuance of the said Mandate is
submitted to be illegal and arbitrary and vitiating the entire election
process.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social
Welfare submits that the relief sought in the writ petition pertains
to the internal election of a religious body, which is beyond the
scope of judicial review of this Court. It is argued that the dispute is
essentially a private election dispute with no public ailment.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contends that the
petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy challenging the
election within the churches owned by synod or by filing the civil
suit before the competent Court.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that
W.P.No.1218 of 2026 pertains to different issue and does not have
any relevance in the adjudication of the present writ petition. It is
contended that the legal position with regard to the maintainability
1
AIR 2024 MADRAS 274
::4::
of a writ petition against the CSI is no longer res integra. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance on the order
dated 18.12.2025 in W.P.No.30716 of 2025 wherein, after
considering the entire law on the subject, the learned Single Judge
of this Court was pleased to hold that the writ petition seeking
similar relief in respect of conduct of elections to the CSI, Diocese of
Karimnagar was not maintainable under Article 226 of Constitution
of India.
7. I have taken note of the respective submissions urged.
Analysis and Findings on Maintainability:
8. The primary question before this Court is whether a writ
petition under Article 226 of Constitution lies against the CSI
challenging a Bishopric election, given the authoritative
pronouncement of the Madras High Court in D. Bright Joseph’s
case (supra).
9. This Court has carefully perused the Judgment of the
Madras Full Bench. The Hon’ble Madras High Court, after an
exhaustive analysis, summarised its findings in paragraph 24,
which is extracted hereunder:
24. To summarize the issue now in reference, it can be stated that:
(i) the respondents 1 and 2 are running 2300 schools, 150 colleges and
104 hospitals in India.
::5::
Therefore, the public duty that they discharge falls within the contours
of Article 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.
(ii) The Courts have emphasized that educational institutions which
nurture and develop young minds should ensure quality education and
high standards of integrity to the persons passing through their
institutes. Therefore, persons administering and managing these
institutions should be above board.
(iii) Since the educational institutions run by respondents 1 and 2, both
aided as well as unaided, are bound by statutory regulations of varying
degrees, they are amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Any act of the
management who are in administration of these institutes / hospitals
likely to bring down the standards of both education as well as medical
services can be challenged by any person invoking the rights under
Article 226 and in that sense, respondents 1 and 2 would fall within the
category of any person or authority as described under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
(iv) The educational agency of the institutions run by the first respondent
is the Synod and the Constitution of the Synod has a direct impact on
the quality and standards of the educational institutions/hospitals.
Therefore, any act impairing / impacting the process of electing the
Synod would have a direct impact on the quality and standard of these
institutions/hospitals.
(v) Apart from running educational institutions, respondents 1 and 2 are
also maintaining churches and discharging functions of the clergy.
These functions are outside the scope of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
(vi) A person aggrieved by the acts of respondents 1 and 2 relating to
the above can definitely move this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to ensure the due compliance of this public duty.
10. Thus, the Madras Full Bench itself drew a clear and
categorical distinction: (a) actions having a direct impact on the
educational institutions and hospitals (public duties) are
amenable to writ jurisdiction; but (b) functions of the clergy and
internal ecclesiastical governance are not amenable.
11. The present writ petition does not challenge any specific act
of administration of a school, college or hospital. The petitioners
::6::
do not allege, for instance, that a particular school is being
mismanaged or that a hospital has lowered its standards. The
sole challenge is to the process of electing a Bishop, the spiritual
head of a diocese. The composition of the Diocesan Council, the
issuance of the mandate, the eligibility of voters and the conduct
of the Bishopric election are matters integral to the internal
governance and religious hierarchy of the Church. They are
quintessentially ecclesiastical functions.
12. To hold that every internal electoral dispute within a
religious denomination becomes a “public duty” merely because
the denomination also runs charitable institutions would be to
obliterate the careful distinction drawn by the Madras Full Bench.
The mere fact that the Bishop, once elected, may oversee
institutions does not convert the act of his election into a public
function. If the petitioners were aggrieved by a specific decision of
the Bishop or the Diocese that directly harmed an educational
institution, a writ might lie. However, challenging the pre-election
procedural steps, the voter list, the nomination process, etc., is a
challenge to the internal democratic process of the Church, which
is not subject to the writ jurisdiction.
::7::
13. Furthermore, this Court notes that the CSI has its own
written constitution (Chapter VI) that prescribes a detailed
procedure for election. There also exists an internal dispute
resolution mechanism. Additionally, the petitioners have an
alternative remedy by way of a civil suit. The existence of an
alternative remedy, though not an absolute bar, is a factor to be
considered when the dispute is essentially of a private, contractual
or internal character.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not
maintainable. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue any other
remedy available to them under the civil law or the internal rules
of the Church. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed.
_______________________
G.M. MOHIUDDIN,J
Date: 21.05.2026
BJ
