[Kerala Church Dispute] SC Dismisses Petition Seeking Clarifications Of Its Judgment [Read Order]

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed seeking clarifications of its judgment in Kerala Church Dispute case. It is clearly an effort for violating the order passed by this Court and no such prayer(s) can be entertained, the bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and S. Abdul Nazeer said. The petitioners sought a clarification that the State of Kerala, and leaders of the Orthodox faction has to implement the findings of K.S. Varghese case. They also sought a clarification that all the parties to the judgment are bound to take appropriate steps for an amicable settlement, by way of a mediation. Yet another prayer was to direct the parties concerned to conduct a referendum, on the basis of the original 1934 constitution, in the individual parish churches for the Selection of the Administrative hierarchy sacramental and liturgical leadership of the individual parish churches according to their faith and tradition.The bench dismissed the application with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Employees Mutual Welfare fund, within a period of six weeks.The court had held thus in the KS Varghese case: Malankara Church is Episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of the parish churches and shall prevail. The decree in the Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma 1995 Supp (4) 286 is completely in tune with the judgment. There is no conflict between the judgment and the decree. The Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma 1995 Supp (4) 286 arising out of the representative suit is binding and operates as res judicata with respect to the matters it has decided, in the wake of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 and Explanation 6 to Section 11 CPC. The same binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who have interest in the Malankara Church. Findings in earlier representative suit i.e. Samudayam suit are also binding on parish churches/parishioners to the extent issues have been decided. As the 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the parish churches, it is not open to any individual Church, to decide to have their new Constitution like that of 2002 in the so-called exercise of right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It is also not permissible to create a parallel system of management in the Churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. The Primate of Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is Catholicos. He enjoys spiritual powers as well, as the Malankara Metropolitan. Malankara Metropolitan has the prime jurisdiction regarding temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of Malankara Church subject to the riders provided in the 1934 Constitution. Full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point. Consequently, he cannot interfere in the governance of parish churches by appointing Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests), etc. and thereby cannot create a parallel system of administration. The appointment has to be made as per the power conferred under the 1934 Constitution on the Diocese, Metropolitan, etc. concerned. Though it is open to the individual member to leave a Church in exercise of the right not to be a member of any association and as per Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Parish Assembly of the Church by majority or otherwise cannot decide to move Church out of the Malankara Church. Once a trust, is always a trust. When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of the beneficiaries, it is not open for the beneficiaries, even by a majority, to usurp its property or management. The Malankara Church is in the form of a trust in which, its properties have vested. As per the 1934 Constitution, the parishioners though may individually leave the Church, they are not permitted to take the movable or immovable properties out of the ambit of the 1934 Constitution without the approval of the Church hierarchy. The spiritual power of Patriarch has been set up by the appellants clearly in order to violate the mandate of the Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma 1995 Supp (4) 286 of this Court which is binding on the Patriarch, Catholicos and all concerned. As per the historical background and the practices which have been noted, the Patriarch is not to exercise the power to appoint Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates, etc. Such powers are reserved to other authorities in the Church hierarchy. The Patriarch, thus, cannot be permitted to exercise the power in violation of the 1934 Constitution to create a parallel system of administration of Churches as done in 2002 and onwards. This Court has held in 1995 that the unilateral exercise of such power by the Patriarch was illegal. The said decision has also been violated. It was only in the alternative this Court held in the Most...

[Kerala Church Dispute] SC Dismisses Petition Seeking Clarifications Of Its Judgment [Read Order]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags