GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa.
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Complaint No. 64/SCIC/2011
Preliminary Objection Decided on: 16/12/2012
Smt. Antonia Michelle Abel,
Flat A-3, Bella Vista Apartments,
O’Coquiero Circle,
Alto Porvorim, Bardez-Goa. ….. Complainant.
V/s
Archibishop Patriarch of the East Indies,
Patriarchal Tribunal of the
Archdiocese of Goa & Daman,
Archibishop’s House, Altinho,
Panaji-Goa. ….. Opponent.
O R D E R
(On Preliminary objection raised by Respondent)
RTI Application dated: - 21/02/2011
PIO reply on: - NIL
Complaint Filed on: - 22/03/2011
1.This order disposes of preliminary points raised by the respondent as to whether the Hon. Archbishop Patriarch of the East Indies, who is also Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman is a public authority within the meaning of sec. 2 of the RTI Act.
2.Some background is traced out, as it is relevant. This complaint is filed on 30/03/2011 u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005. It arises out of RTI application made u/s 6 to the PIO in the Office of Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman on 21/02/2011. It asked question 1(a) to 1(i) and question No. 2 to 5. Out of these, question No. 2 is request to
Contd –2/-
--2--
inspect the Register of Cases of Annulment of Marriages maintained in the Office of the respondent.Question No. 1 is mostly about those documents through which the Hon. ArchBishop gets his authority to work as Patriachal Tribunal.
3.The complaint filed before the SCIC is on the ground that no reply was given to her RTI application. Her grounds can be summarized as
Initially,on her personal visit to the office of the respondent to submit her application, the office of the respondent refused to accept her RTI application and informed orally that the respondent has not opened a Public Information Office for the Catholic Church of Goa nor designated any PIO with regard to any information about an Ecclesiastical Office and Court of the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, and hence her application cannot be taken.
Then she sent the said application by post and the same was returned with the postal endorsement “Refused, return to Sender” . Thus the Office of the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman cannot deny responsibility or knowledge of her questions.
Further, the Office is a public authority for the reason mentioned in the Complaint Memo, especially because the Portuguese Decree Law No. 35461 dated 22/1/1946, confers power on the Respondent to function as Ecclesiastical Office and Court regarding Canonical Marriage, including the sentence of Annulment of Marriage and hence it falls under RTI Act.
4.Notices were issued by the then SCIC and the matter was fixed for first hearing on 10/06/2011. The respondent was represented by Fr. Victor Rodrigues , claimed to be GPA holder ( General Power of Attorney holder) on behalf of the Hon.ArchBishop and who further appointed Adv. S. Karpe to represent him.
Contd ….3/-
--3--
5.On 4/07/2011 Fr. Victor Rodrigues filed a preliminary objection stating that the opponent is the Head of a religious institution and not Public Authority within the meaning of RTI Act. Hence the complaint is liable to be rejected. Thereafter the respondent has taken 4 adjournment despite objection of the complainant. Hence the complainant filed written submission and reply to the preliminary objection on 01/12/2011 and on 14/02/2012. She attached Exhibit A, B, C, D.
6.Thereafter the case got adjourned on many occasions, during which the then SCIC retired at the end of July 2012 and the hearing was resumed in the month of November, 2013 onwards. After several adjournment finally it was taken on record on 5/12/2014 that Fr. Rodrigues had not filed his GPA (General Power of Attorney) to represent the Respondent Hon. ArchBishop, even though the same was promised. Finally on 15/12/2014 Fr. Valeriano Vaz, the new holder of GPA filed a copy of GPA through Adv. A Naik holding for Adv. Karpe. Then the matter was posted for hearing on 16/12/2014, to decide
1. if GPA of Fr. Valeriano Vaz gives him sufficient authority to defend Archbishop on matters of RTI .
2. Whether Archbishop is a deemed Public Authority.
7. After recording the above stated background, I proceed to decide these two issues which in turn decide the preliminary issue raised by the Respondent.
8. The complainant has filed submisstion on 29/09/2014 and 05/12/2014 which are received by the Advocate for respondent. She has also filed rejoinder challenging GPA on 15/12/2014, Adv. Karpe has filed replies to the same as well as the submissions of the Respondent and has also argued the matter orally on 16/12/2014. I have heard oral arguments of both the parties and also gone through the written documents brought on record. First, the complaint states that since the Archbishop is the respondent in her complaint application, Wakalatnama for Adv. Karpe cannot be signed either by Fr. Rodrigues or by Fr. Valeriano Vaz.
So inter-alia I also have to decide a third point namely,
Contd---4/-
--4--
3. What is effect on the Respondent Hon. ArchBishop if GPA of Fr. Vaz is not acceptable.
9. The General Power of Attorney dated 30/08/2012 reads as - “to manage and administer all the immovable properties. To appear and act in all Court and Tribunals, either Civil, Revenue and Criminal, whether original or Appellate, in the Registration Offices and in any other Offices either Government or Semi-Government, District Board, Municipalities, Panchayats or any other Local Authority. To appoint advocates, pleaders or any other legal practitioner for any of the purposes mentioned herein.”
10. The complainant argued that the GPA presented by Fr. Vaz is in respect of financial and administrative matters and not include the power to represent the Hon. ArchBishop in RTI matter or which refers to his role as Patriarchal Tribunal. The complainant pointed to proviso in the GPA which read as “PROVIDED that the powers reserved by the “Codex Juris Canonicis”(Code of Canon Law) to the Archbishop only in such capacity and which cannot be delegated, are not included in the present Power of Attorney as well as with regard to the administration of temporal goods and assets, movable and immovable properties of the Archdiocese which according to the Cannon Law are of major importance or of extraordinary administration. (alienation of stable patrimony.) As regards such powers reserved to the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman or to the ArchBishop the Powers of the Attorney Fr. Valeriano Joaquim Vaz will be of execution only on the financial administration, and besides, written instructions may be asked for by said Attorney or given to him from time to time for specific cases or classes of cases.”
11. First, it is seen that the notices issued to the respondent on 28/04/2011 and on 27/07/2012 are both issued in the name Archbishop Patriarch of the East Indies, and Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa & Daman. Hence the third question referred in para 8 is more relevant. If the GPA of Fr. Vaz is restricted by the above proviso then the effect is that the Hon. Archibishop has not attended this Commission despite proper notice sent to him and hence I can proceed to decide preliminary question No. 2 in para 6. On the other hand, if the GPA of Fr. Vaz, especially para 8 and 10 are sufficient to allow him to represent the Archibishop in the present matter, then he in turn is authorized to appoint Adv. Karpe, who in turn authorized to argue on question No. 2 of para 6.
Cont….5/-
--5--
12. Thus whether the answer to preliminary question No. 1 is in the affirmative ( that GPA of Fr. Vaz is sufficient to allow him to represent Archibishop in the present matter) or in the negative, in either of the situation, I have to proceed to decide the preliminary objection No. 2. Hence I proceed to discuss preliminary objection No. 2. Both the complainant as well as Adv. Karpe rely on Law of Canonical Marriage (henceforth referred as “Law” for brevity ) and also Sec. 2(h) of the RTI Act. The complainant emphasize that her RTI question 2 pertains to inspection and information from the Register of Cases of Annulment of Marriages. According to Canonical Law Article 1141, a Christian marriage that has been consummated cannot be annulled.The pronouncement of Annulment of Marriage has all the connotations of Court or Tribunal and in that regard only a properly appointed Patriarchal Tribunal can decide upon matrimonial litigations including those where Annulment is pronounced. The marriage between two spouses is a matter of their mutual consent, there is a harmonious understanding. On the other hand Cases of Annulment arise necessarily out of mutual disagreement to stay married. Hence the issue of Annulment is a matter of litigation in which the Authority has to act judiciously and decide the issues and pass order or a “Sentence” of Annulment. Article 19 of the Law states that
“ The cognizance of the causes regarding the nullity of canonical marriage and regarding the exemption of non consummated religious marriage is reserved by the competent Ecclesiastical Court and Offices.
Paragraph 1. The decision and judgments of the said Offices and Court, when final, shall be forwarded to the highest Ecclesiastical Court, transmitted through the diplomatic channel to the competent High Court, which will enforce them without revision and confirmation, and order that they be endorsed in the books of Civil Registration on the margin of the certificate of the marriage.
Paragraph 2. The Ecclesiastical Tribunal may request the Civil Court for service of summons or notice to the parties, experts, witnesses as well as doing of any acts of enquiry which they deem convenient.”
Contd---6/-
--6--
13. The above Article of the Decree No. 35461 is titled as “Marriage in the Portuguese Colonies” whose preamble reads:-
“As per Article 22 of the Treaty with the Holy See, the Portuguese Government bound itself to acknowledge civil effects to the marriages solemnized in conformity with the canonical laws as per the terms stipulated therein.
The trend now followed is to bring as near as possible the juridical system of the canonical marriage in the metropolis to those civilized persons residing in the colonies, facilitating, at the same time to the maximum, the work of the religious missions among the native population.
Hence, due to urgency , keeping in mind Article 10 and its paragraph 2 of the Organic Law of the Colonial Portuguese Empire and in exercise of the power, conferred by Article 28 of the Colonial Act, the Minister for the Colonies decrees and I promulgate the following.”
14. The argument of the complainant is that since the question of Annulment of Marriage is a function which is akin to the judgements of Court and the Hon. Archbishop is called Patriarchal Tribunal and since his judgment affect the entire Christian population in State of Goa, the common citizen of Christian Community, if not all the citizen, are entitled to ask RTI quarry in respect of order passed by the Patriarchal Tribunal in matters of Annulment of Marriage.
15. The Adv. for the respondent pointed to the following
Sec. 2(h) of the RTI Act, states-
“Public authority” means any authority or body or institution of sef-government established or constituted-
(a)By or under the Constitution;
(b)By any other law made by Parliament;
(c)By any other law made by State Legislature;
(d)By notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any.”
it is obvious that 2(h) a, b and d are unquestionably not applicable in the present case. Only scope of section 2(h) (c ) has to be examined which talks about law made by State Legislature.
Contd---7/-
--7--
It is true that the Decree No. 35461 passed by the Government of Portugal in 1946 was applicable to all the citizen of Goa under the rule of the Portuguese Government. After the Government of India has taken over the governance of Goa, the Laws and Decrees that have not been specifically repealed by the Government of Goa after 1961 will continue to operate as before in the Portuguese regime. The said Decree 35461 has not been specially repealed. Hence it will continue to be enforced as before.
However, Article 5 of the Decree is relevant. It states “The marriages only solemnized canonically, prior to the coming into force of this Decree, in contravention of the civil law, may be transcribed in the Civil Registration office as long as none of the impediments, which normally prevent the transcription, exists, whether they be prior or subsequent to the canonical solemnization.”
The wording of this article shows that it is the job of the Civil Registrar’s Office to keep the record of marriage as well as of Annulment. Hence under RTI Act, the question must be directed to the Civil Registration Office.
Further, article 8 and 9 provide-
“Save as what is provided in Article 16, no canonical marriage shall be solemnized without producing before the missionary, a certificate issued by the concerned official of the Civil Registration wherein it is declared that there is no objection for the solemnization of marriage in civil form.
The proceeding of no-objection certificate in the office of Civil Registration, competent to solemnize the civil marriage, shall be instituted by an application made by the proposed spouses or their representatives or the missionary. “
Hence, the RTI question should have been submitted to the Civil Registration Office.
16. The complainant has refuted the above by stating that the job of the Civil Registration Office is simply to transcribe whatever is being given to him under the
Contd---8/-
--8--
authority of the Hon. Archbishop, whether it is a question of solemnization of the marriage or question of Annulment of Marriage. The process through which the Archbishop comes to the conclusion and passes the judgment or order on Annulment of Marriage is not in the competency of the Civil Registration Office. Hence the question 2 of her RTI application read with question 1, which speaks of inspection of the register of cases of Annulment of Marriages relates to Archbishop himself and not to the Civil Registration Office. For the same reason she is also entitled to ask RTI question No. 1a and 1b which give the details of “appointment to the Post of Archbishop Patriarch of the East Indies and for the setting up of the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman” . For the same reason she is also entitled to ask question on 1(c) to 1( i) and question No. 3, 4 and 5, under RTI Act.
17. The complainant has referred to an order of FAA, of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in RTI Appeal No. 2/2011, wherein the FAA and the Principal Registrar of High Court of Bombay has observed that the complainant had filed RTI application asking ten points regarding “His Eminence, Most Revd Fr Filipe Neri Ferrao’s to the post of Archbishop-Patriarch of the East Indies. The PIO of the High Court of Bombay transferred this application to the PIO of Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa & Daman. It appears that information related to entirely an independent office/department which is not connected with the functioning of PIO, High Court at Goa. This is further clear from the documents produced by appellant. During the course of hearing she has mentioned that proceedings on that line are pending before the State Information Commission of Goa. It supports the defence of respondent PIO of the High Court that the information is not available with the office of High Court at Goa. Even PIO, High Court at Goa transferred the RTI application under section 6(3) vide letter dated 05/05/2011 on points 1(a) to (j) to the Public Information Officer, Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa & Daman. Since the information sought is not available and application to that effect was duly and legally transferred to another Public Authority in view thereof, there is no obligation on the part of respondent to furnish the same. The PIO replied that the information was not available , hence the Appeal Stands dismissed.”
Contd---9/-
--9--
I do not find this as relevant at this stage except that their PIO had referred back the querries to Hon. ArchBishop under section 6 (3) to discharge duties as Public Authority under RTI Act.
18. Further, the Complainant points out to Exhibit “C” filed alongwith her say on 1/12/2011.This is order dated 5/01/2009 passed by Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, informing Mr. Lawrence Rodrigues that a sentence has been passed to declare his marriage null and void, if aggrieved, he may file an appeal to the Second Instance Tribunal of Bombay. Complainant has quoted this as example from out of a large number of such “sentences” passed by the Hon. ArchBishop. She argued that on going through of the above documents it is clear that the Hon. ArchBishop is discharging duties akin to Court to decide issues of Annulment of marriage and his sentences are binding on Christian Community. He gets this authority from the decree no. 35461 passed by Government of Portugal and later continued by Government of Goa Hence the preliminary issue of applying RTI Act to the Office of the Hon. ArchBishop and Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman has to be decided by holding this decree as fulfilling criteria of section 2(h)(c) and also on basis of the actual functions performed by Archbishop while acting as Patriarchal Tribunal and its effect on the Christian Society to whom the judgments apply.
19. I have carefully gone through these arguments. I hold Fr. Vaz and the Advocate appointed by him as sufficiently authorized to represent the Hon. ArchBishop and Patriarachal Tribunal in matters of RTI Act should the Hon. ArchBishop later deny this authority, it would only mean that he has deliberately chosen not to be heard in the present case. After hearing his Advocate as well as Complainant I hold that Archbishop is a Public Authority within the meaning of Sec. 2(h)(c ) as his authority comes from the pope at Vatican as ratified by government through above decree, according to which (Decree No. 35461), the Portuguese Government had a Treaty with the Holy See under which the canonical marriage were solemnized by the Archbishop. Further when marriages required annulment at the request of any concerned party, the sentence of annulment was also passed by the Archbishop, acting in his capacity as Patriarchal Tribunal. The question of annulment effects
Contd---10/-
--10--
the whole of the Christian Society in Goa. All other Civil or legal Officers authorized to transcribe his decisions are restricted only for maintaining list of such marriage or annulment. A citizen of Goa is allowed to inspect not only the list but also the register in respect of process of annulment which is kept by Patriarchal Tribunal. For the same reason a citizen is also entitled to see the information relating to his appointment as asked in RTI for question No. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) in particular and 1(a ) to 1(i) along with other questions in general. A differentiation may perhaps be made in future between any citizen asking such RTI query and a Christian Citizen asking such query, but the present occasion is not for such a differentiation as the RTI applicant belongs to Christian Community.
20) It is understood that Marriage is relationship created between two persons and so is the annulment of the marriage. Every Civil Society however requires that these relationships are given due sanctions by the norms of the Society. Certain rights or benefits accrue to the members depending on whether such a sanction is available or not. In case of Christian population in Goa the Marriage between two Christian persons may be only a matter of record but the annulment of their marriage is a matter of judgmental order passed by the Patriarchal Tribunal. The persons in regard to whom such a judgmental order is passed stand to gain or lose their standing in the society by way of the annulment. Hence I hold that the office of the Archbishop falls under the definition of Public Authority and the respondent will have to answer the RTI questions asked in respect of annulment of marriages as well as the related questions.
21. The preliminary point raised by the respondent having been thus decided, the Complaint No. 64/SCIC/2011 is fixed for further hearing on 17/03/2015 to allow the Respondent Hon. ArchBishop and Patriarchal Tribunal to reply to the queries raised by Complainant in the interregnum.
Adjourned to 17/03/2015 for further hearing.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji – Goa.
Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa.
CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Complaint No. 64/SCIC/2011
Preliminary Objection Decided on: 16/12/2012
Smt. Antonia Michelle Abel,
Flat A-3, Bella Vista Apartments,
O’Coquiero Circle,
Alto Porvorim, Bardez-Goa. ….. Complainant.
V/s
Archibishop Patriarch of the East Indies,
Patriarchal Tribunal of the
Archdiocese of Goa & Daman,
Archibishop’s House, Altinho,
Panaji-Goa. ….. Opponent.
O R D E R
(On Preliminary objection raised by Respondent)
RTI Application dated: - 21/02/2011
PIO reply on: - NIL
Complaint Filed on: - 22/03/2011
1.This order disposes of preliminary points raised by the respondent as to whether the Hon. Archbishop Patriarch of the East Indies, who is also Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman is a public authority within the meaning of sec. 2 of the RTI Act.
2.Some background is traced out, as it is relevant. This complaint is filed on 30/03/2011 u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005. It arises out of RTI application made u/s 6 to the PIO in the Office of Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman on 21/02/2011. It asked question 1(a) to 1(i) and question No. 2 to 5. Out of these, question No. 2 is request to
Contd –2/-
--2--
inspect the Register of Cases of Annulment of Marriages maintained in the Office of the respondent.Question No. 1 is mostly about those documents through which the Hon. ArchBishop gets his authority to work as Patriachal Tribunal.
3.The complaint filed before the SCIC is on the ground that no reply was given to her RTI application. Her grounds can be summarized as
Initially,on her personal visit to the office of the respondent to submit her application, the office of the respondent refused to accept her RTI application and informed orally that the respondent has not opened a Public Information Office for the Catholic Church of Goa nor designated any PIO with regard to any information about an Ecclesiastical Office and Court of the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, and hence her application cannot be taken.
Then she sent the said application by post and the same was returned with the postal endorsement “Refused, return to Sender” . Thus the Office of the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman cannot deny responsibility or knowledge of her questions.
Further, the Office is a public authority for the reason mentioned in the Complaint Memo, especially because the Portuguese Decree Law No. 35461 dated 22/1/1946, confers power on the Respondent to function as Ecclesiastical Office and Court regarding Canonical Marriage, including the sentence of Annulment of Marriage and hence it falls under RTI Act.
4.Notices were issued by the then SCIC and the matter was fixed for first hearing on 10/06/2011. The respondent was represented by Fr. Victor Rodrigues , claimed to be GPA holder ( General Power of Attorney holder) on behalf of the Hon.ArchBishop and who further appointed Adv. S. Karpe to represent him.
Contd ….3/-
--3--
5.On 4/07/2011 Fr. Victor Rodrigues filed a preliminary objection stating that the opponent is the Head of a religious institution and not Public Authority within the meaning of RTI Act. Hence the complaint is liable to be rejected. Thereafter the respondent has taken 4 adjournment despite objection of the complainant. Hence the complainant filed written submission and reply to the preliminary objection on 01/12/2011 and on 14/02/2012. She attached Exhibit A, B, C, D.
6.Thereafter the case got adjourned on many occasions, during which the then SCIC retired at the end of July 2012 and the hearing was resumed in the month of November, 2013 onwards. After several adjournment finally it was taken on record on 5/12/2014 that Fr. Rodrigues had not filed his GPA (General Power of Attorney) to represent the Respondent Hon. ArchBishop, even though the same was promised. Finally on 15/12/2014 Fr. Valeriano Vaz, the new holder of GPA filed a copy of GPA through Adv. A Naik holding for Adv. Karpe. Then the matter was posted for hearing on 16/12/2014, to decide
1. if GPA of Fr. Valeriano Vaz gives him sufficient authority to defend Archbishop on matters of RTI .
2. Whether Archbishop is a deemed Public Authority.
7. After recording the above stated background, I proceed to decide these two issues which in turn decide the preliminary issue raised by the Respondent.
8. The complainant has filed submisstion on 29/09/2014 and 05/12/2014 which are received by the Advocate for respondent. She has also filed rejoinder challenging GPA on 15/12/2014, Adv. Karpe has filed replies to the same as well as the submissions of the Respondent and has also argued the matter orally on 16/12/2014. I have heard oral arguments of both the parties and also gone through the written documents brought on record. First, the complaint states that since the Archbishop is the respondent in her complaint application, Wakalatnama for Adv. Karpe cannot be signed either by Fr. Rodrigues or by Fr. Valeriano Vaz.
So inter-alia I also have to decide a third point namely,
Contd---4/-
--4--
3. What is effect on the Respondent Hon. ArchBishop if GPA of Fr. Vaz is not acceptable.
9. The General Power of Attorney dated 30/08/2012 reads as - “to manage and administer all the immovable properties. To appear and act in all Court and Tribunals, either Civil, Revenue and Criminal, whether original or Appellate, in the Registration Offices and in any other Offices either Government or Semi-Government, District Board, Municipalities, Panchayats or any other Local Authority. To appoint advocates, pleaders or any other legal practitioner for any of the purposes mentioned herein.”
10. The complainant argued that the GPA presented by Fr. Vaz is in respect of financial and administrative matters and not include the power to represent the Hon. ArchBishop in RTI matter or which refers to his role as Patriarchal Tribunal. The complainant pointed to proviso in the GPA which read as “PROVIDED that the powers reserved by the “Codex Juris Canonicis”(Code of Canon Law) to the Archbishop only in such capacity and which cannot be delegated, are not included in the present Power of Attorney as well as with regard to the administration of temporal goods and assets, movable and immovable properties of the Archdiocese which according to the Cannon Law are of major importance or of extraordinary administration. (alienation of stable patrimony.) As regards such powers reserved to the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman or to the ArchBishop the Powers of the Attorney Fr. Valeriano Joaquim Vaz will be of execution only on the financial administration, and besides, written instructions may be asked for by said Attorney or given to him from time to time for specific cases or classes of cases.”
11. First, it is seen that the notices issued to the respondent on 28/04/2011 and on 27/07/2012 are both issued in the name Archbishop Patriarch of the East Indies, and Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa & Daman. Hence the third question referred in para 8 is more relevant. If the GPA of Fr. Vaz is restricted by the above proviso then the effect is that the Hon. Archibishop has not attended this Commission despite proper notice sent to him and hence I can proceed to decide preliminary question No. 2 in para 6. On the other hand, if the GPA of Fr. Vaz, especially para 8 and 10 are sufficient to allow him to represent the Archibishop in the present matter, then he in turn is authorized to appoint Adv. Karpe, who in turn authorized to argue on question No. 2 of para 6.
Cont….5/-
--5--
12. Thus whether the answer to preliminary question No. 1 is in the affirmative ( that GPA of Fr. Vaz is sufficient to allow him to represent Archibishop in the present matter) or in the negative, in either of the situation, I have to proceed to decide the preliminary objection No. 2. Hence I proceed to discuss preliminary objection No. 2. Both the complainant as well as Adv. Karpe rely on Law of Canonical Marriage (henceforth referred as “Law” for brevity ) and also Sec. 2(h) of the RTI Act. The complainant emphasize that her RTI question 2 pertains to inspection and information from the Register of Cases of Annulment of Marriages. According to Canonical Law Article 1141, a Christian marriage that has been consummated cannot be annulled.The pronouncement of Annulment of Marriage has all the connotations of Court or Tribunal and in that regard only a properly appointed Patriarchal Tribunal can decide upon matrimonial litigations including those where Annulment is pronounced. The marriage between two spouses is a matter of their mutual consent, there is a harmonious understanding. On the other hand Cases of Annulment arise necessarily out of mutual disagreement to stay married. Hence the issue of Annulment is a matter of litigation in which the Authority has to act judiciously and decide the issues and pass order or a “Sentence” of Annulment. Article 19 of the Law states that
“ The cognizance of the causes regarding the nullity of canonical marriage and regarding the exemption of non consummated religious marriage is reserved by the competent Ecclesiastical Court and Offices.
Paragraph 1. The decision and judgments of the said Offices and Court, when final, shall be forwarded to the highest Ecclesiastical Court, transmitted through the diplomatic channel to the competent High Court, which will enforce them without revision and confirmation, and order that they be endorsed in the books of Civil Registration on the margin of the certificate of the marriage.
Paragraph 2. The Ecclesiastical Tribunal may request the Civil Court for service of summons or notice to the parties, experts, witnesses as well as doing of any acts of enquiry which they deem convenient.”
Contd---6/-
--6--
13. The above Article of the Decree No. 35461 is titled as “Marriage in the Portuguese Colonies” whose preamble reads:-
“As per Article 22 of the Treaty with the Holy See, the Portuguese Government bound itself to acknowledge civil effects to the marriages solemnized in conformity with the canonical laws as per the terms stipulated therein.
The trend now followed is to bring as near as possible the juridical system of the canonical marriage in the metropolis to those civilized persons residing in the colonies, facilitating, at the same time to the maximum, the work of the religious missions among the native population.
Hence, due to urgency , keeping in mind Article 10 and its paragraph 2 of the Organic Law of the Colonial Portuguese Empire and in exercise of the power, conferred by Article 28 of the Colonial Act, the Minister for the Colonies decrees and I promulgate the following.”
14. The argument of the complainant is that since the question of Annulment of Marriage is a function which is akin to the judgements of Court and the Hon. Archbishop is called Patriarchal Tribunal and since his judgment affect the entire Christian population in State of Goa, the common citizen of Christian Community, if not all the citizen, are entitled to ask RTI quarry in respect of order passed by the Patriarchal Tribunal in matters of Annulment of Marriage.
15. The Adv. for the respondent pointed to the following
Sec. 2(h) of the RTI Act, states-
“Public authority” means any authority or body or institution of sef-government established or constituted-
(a)By or under the Constitution;
(b)By any other law made by Parliament;
(c)By any other law made by State Legislature;
(d)By notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any.”
it is obvious that 2(h) a, b and d are unquestionably not applicable in the present case. Only scope of section 2(h) (c ) has to be examined which talks about law made by State Legislature.
Contd---7/-
--7--
It is true that the Decree No. 35461 passed by the Government of Portugal in 1946 was applicable to all the citizen of Goa under the rule of the Portuguese Government. After the Government of India has taken over the governance of Goa, the Laws and Decrees that have not been specifically repealed by the Government of Goa after 1961 will continue to operate as before in the Portuguese regime. The said Decree 35461 has not been specially repealed. Hence it will continue to be enforced as before.
However, Article 5 of the Decree is relevant. It states “The marriages only solemnized canonically, prior to the coming into force of this Decree, in contravention of the civil law, may be transcribed in the Civil Registration office as long as none of the impediments, which normally prevent the transcription, exists, whether they be prior or subsequent to the canonical solemnization.”
The wording of this article shows that it is the job of the Civil Registrar’s Office to keep the record of marriage as well as of Annulment. Hence under RTI Act, the question must be directed to the Civil Registration Office.
Further, article 8 and 9 provide-
“Save as what is provided in Article 16, no canonical marriage shall be solemnized without producing before the missionary, a certificate issued by the concerned official of the Civil Registration wherein it is declared that there is no objection for the solemnization of marriage in civil form.
The proceeding of no-objection certificate in the office of Civil Registration, competent to solemnize the civil marriage, shall be instituted by an application made by the proposed spouses or their representatives or the missionary. “
Hence, the RTI question should have been submitted to the Civil Registration Office.
16. The complainant has refuted the above by stating that the job of the Civil Registration Office is simply to transcribe whatever is being given to him under the
Contd---8/-
--8--
authority of the Hon. Archbishop, whether it is a question of solemnization of the marriage or question of Annulment of Marriage. The process through which the Archbishop comes to the conclusion and passes the judgment or order on Annulment of Marriage is not in the competency of the Civil Registration Office. Hence the question 2 of her RTI application read with question 1, which speaks of inspection of the register of cases of Annulment of Marriages relates to Archbishop himself and not to the Civil Registration Office. For the same reason she is also entitled to ask RTI question No. 1a and 1b which give the details of “appointment to the Post of Archbishop Patriarch of the East Indies and for the setting up of the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman” . For the same reason she is also entitled to ask question on 1(c) to 1( i) and question No. 3, 4 and 5, under RTI Act.
17. The complainant has referred to an order of FAA, of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in RTI Appeal No. 2/2011, wherein the FAA and the Principal Registrar of High Court of Bombay has observed that the complainant had filed RTI application asking ten points regarding “His Eminence, Most Revd Fr Filipe Neri Ferrao’s to the post of Archbishop-Patriarch of the East Indies. The PIO of the High Court of Bombay transferred this application to the PIO of Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa & Daman. It appears that information related to entirely an independent office/department which is not connected with the functioning of PIO, High Court at Goa. This is further clear from the documents produced by appellant. During the course of hearing she has mentioned that proceedings on that line are pending before the State Information Commission of Goa. It supports the defence of respondent PIO of the High Court that the information is not available with the office of High Court at Goa. Even PIO, High Court at Goa transferred the RTI application under section 6(3) vide letter dated 05/05/2011 on points 1(a) to (j) to the Public Information Officer, Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa & Daman. Since the information sought is not available and application to that effect was duly and legally transferred to another Public Authority in view thereof, there is no obligation on the part of respondent to furnish the same. The PIO replied that the information was not available , hence the Appeal Stands dismissed.”
Contd---9/-
--9--
I do not find this as relevant at this stage except that their PIO had referred back the querries to Hon. ArchBishop under section 6 (3) to discharge duties as Public Authority under RTI Act.
18. Further, the Complainant points out to Exhibit “C” filed alongwith her say on 1/12/2011.This is order dated 5/01/2009 passed by Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, informing Mr. Lawrence Rodrigues that a sentence has been passed to declare his marriage null and void, if aggrieved, he may file an appeal to the Second Instance Tribunal of Bombay. Complainant has quoted this as example from out of a large number of such “sentences” passed by the Hon. ArchBishop. She argued that on going through of the above documents it is clear that the Hon. ArchBishop is discharging duties akin to Court to decide issues of Annulment of marriage and his sentences are binding on Christian Community. He gets this authority from the decree no. 35461 passed by Government of Portugal and later continued by Government of Goa Hence the preliminary issue of applying RTI Act to the Office of the Hon. ArchBishop and Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman has to be decided by holding this decree as fulfilling criteria of section 2(h)(c) and also on basis of the actual functions performed by Archbishop while acting as Patriarchal Tribunal and its effect on the Christian Society to whom the judgments apply.
19. I have carefully gone through these arguments. I hold Fr. Vaz and the Advocate appointed by him as sufficiently authorized to represent the Hon. ArchBishop and Patriarachal Tribunal in matters of RTI Act should the Hon. ArchBishop later deny this authority, it would only mean that he has deliberately chosen not to be heard in the present case. After hearing his Advocate as well as Complainant I hold that Archbishop is a Public Authority within the meaning of Sec. 2(h)(c ) as his authority comes from the pope at Vatican as ratified by government through above decree, according to which (Decree No. 35461), the Portuguese Government had a Treaty with the Holy See under which the canonical marriage were solemnized by the Archbishop. Further when marriages required annulment at the request of any concerned party, the sentence of annulment was also passed by the Archbishop, acting in his capacity as Patriarchal Tribunal. The question of annulment effects
Contd---10/-
--10--
the whole of the Christian Society in Goa. All other Civil or legal Officers authorized to transcribe his decisions are restricted only for maintaining list of such marriage or annulment. A citizen of Goa is allowed to inspect not only the list but also the register in respect of process of annulment which is kept by Patriarchal Tribunal. For the same reason a citizen is also entitled to see the information relating to his appointment as asked in RTI for question No. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) in particular and 1(a ) to 1(i) along with other questions in general. A differentiation may perhaps be made in future between any citizen asking such RTI query and a Christian Citizen asking such query, but the present occasion is not for such a differentiation as the RTI applicant belongs to Christian Community.
20) It is understood that Marriage is relationship created between two persons and so is the annulment of the marriage. Every Civil Society however requires that these relationships are given due sanctions by the norms of the Society. Certain rights or benefits accrue to the members depending on whether such a sanction is available or not. In case of Christian population in Goa the Marriage between two Christian persons may be only a matter of record but the annulment of their marriage is a matter of judgmental order passed by the Patriarchal Tribunal. The persons in regard to whom such a judgmental order is passed stand to gain or lose their standing in the society by way of the annulment. Hence I hold that the office of the Archbishop falls under the definition of Public Authority and the respondent will have to answer the RTI questions asked in respect of annulment of marriages as well as the related questions.
21. The preliminary point raised by the respondent having been thus decided, the Complaint No. 64/SCIC/2011 is fixed for further hearing on 17/03/2015 to allow the Respondent Hon. ArchBishop and Patriarchal Tribunal to reply to the queries raised by Complainant in the interregnum.
Adjourned to 17/03/2015 for further hearing.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,
Panaji – Goa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goa Chief Information Commissioner, Leena Mehendale on Wednesday passed an order upholding that the Archbishop, in his capacity as ‘Patriarchal Tribunal’, is a public authority for annulment of marriages and answerable to queries limited to the aspects of annulment.
Ms. Mehendale passed the order disposing of preliminary points raised by respondent as to whether Archbishop Patriarchal Tribunal of the East Indies, who is also patriarch of Archdiocese of Goa and Daman is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2 of the right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
She further ruled that a distinction maybe made in future between any citizen asking an RTI query and a Christian citizen asking the same. However, the present occasion is not for such a differentiation as RTI query asked by person from Christian community, CIC said.
The complaint was filed by Antonio Michael Abel of Goa before the CIC following denial of her plea to Archbishop in 2011 to allow her inspection of register of annulment of marriages and another requesting to show her his authority to act as Archbishop Patriarch Tribunal as obtained from the Pope.
The CIC has now fixed the complaint for further hearing to allow respondent to reply to RTI queries raised by complainant, on March 17, 2015.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RTI Foundation of India
Is “Archbishop” covered under the RTI Act? 8 Jan, 2015 In an order, the Chief Information Commissioner of the Goa State Information Commission, Ms Leena Mehendale ruled that the Archbishop, in his capacity as ‘Patriarchal Tribunal’, is a public authority under section 2 (h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 for annulment of marriages and is answerable to queries limited to the aspects of annulment. Hearing a complaint filed by Antonio Michael Abel, the SIC gave the verdict. The applicant had sought inspection of register of annulment of marriages and also his authority to act as Archbishop Patriarch Tribunal as obtained from the Pope. Upon the refusal to provide the information, the matter came up before the SIC. The SIC order disposes the preliminary points raised by respondent as to whether Archbishop Patriarchal Tribunal of the East Indies, who is also patriarch of Archdiocese of Goa and Daman, is a public authority. Ms Mehendale ruled that in future, a distinction maybe made between any citizen asking an RTI query and a Christian citizen asking the same. However, as the present applicant was a Christian, such a differentiation was not examined by the bench. For further hearing of the complaint in respect of other RTI queries, the SIC gave time to the respondent to reply and fixed the next date of hearing for March 17, 2015. For past articles on similar issue, please refer to the list below.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
