Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. The counsel for the 4th respondent also supported the orders passed by the court below and adopted the arguments of the Senior counsel appearing for the respondents and contended that respondent No.3/the Malankara Suriyani Knanaya Association, also OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025 2025:KER:51096 said to be passed the resolution against the bull issued by the Patriarch, and is not acceptable. The 3rd respondent also stated in the statement of injunction contenting that the petitioner was ordained him as Met- ropolitan of Knanaya Archdiocese as a spiritual head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church as prescribed in the Knanaya constitution, and he has replied to the petitioner to clear the air of misunderstanding as alleged in the said notice and is responsible for the smooth admin- istration of the Knanaya Archdiocese consisting exclusively the members of the fourth respondent association as governed by the Knanaya constitution. He further contended that he sought clarification from the Knanaya Committee which is an exclusive body appointed by the 5th respondent/Knanaya Association, for the day-to- day administration of the Association, Samudayam, regarding the allegations raised in the kalpana notice. The Knanaya Committee provided him with a detailed reply on 26.04.2024, which he has promptly forwarded to the petitioner with a covering letter on OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025 2025:KER:51096 30.04.2024.

161. The Division Bench has arrived at its finding regarding the Knanaya Church being a part of Malankara Church and the Knanaya Metropolitan being subject to the spiritual superior of the Catholicos on the basis of the following facts mainly, apart from other material, viz., (a) OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025 2025:KER:51096 in the Manarcadu meeting of the Malankara Association (after the judg- ment of the High Court in Samudayam suit declaring Catholicos group as heretics) convened pursuant to the directions of the High Court, not only the Knanaya Churches participated therein but the Knanaya Metropoli- tan, Mar Clemis, was elected as the Malankara Metropolitan: and (b) af- ter the judgment of this Court in Moran Mar Basselios, Knanaya Churches participated in the meetings of the Malankara Association held in 1959, 1962, 1965 and 1970 as would be evident from Exs. A-47(h), A-50(h) and A-53(h). Leading members of the Knanaya community were elected as members of the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association.

36. It is well settled by the Apex Court and recognize the Knanaya Constitution adopted by the Knanaya Community/Associa- tion. The Malankara Suryani Knanaya Samudaya Constitution is produced before this Court (the translated version of the Knanaya Constitution produced by the petitioner has some defects in the trans- lation, hence not relied).

37. Coming to the Kalpana/Bull, issued by the petitioner, which reveals that, the Kalpana, i.e., the show cause notice was issued by exercising the power under Article 59(a) of the Church Constitu- tion. The learned counsel for the petitioner contented that the petitioner exercised the power under such constitution 2002, therefore, OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025 2025:KER:51096 nd once the said Metropolitan/2 defendant accepted the supremacy of the 1st petitioner/His Holiness, he has appeared in the V.C., has sent reply and subsequently on 16.5.2024, another Kalpana issued by sus- pending the 2nd defendant/Metropolitan. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent is strenuously contented that there is no power under the Knanaya constitution to the petitioner, and also the Knanaya Constitution, 1918 has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 1995 Judgment, while upholding the 1934 Con- stitution. Such being the case, the 1918 Constitution, which was amended in the year 2003, where there is no such power to the petitioner/patriarch for taking any disciplinary action against the Metropolitan over the Temporal affairs of the churches.

39. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent has brought to the notice that after passing the Judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1995, by upholding the 1934 Constitution and Knanaya Constitution 1912/1918. The petitioner cre- ated a new Constitution, i.e., the Constitution of the Syrian Orthodox Church Constitution in 2002. Therefore, Article 59(A) exercised by the petitioner is required to be considered by the Civil Court during the trial. The petitioner amended the constitution to overcome the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though Section 16 of the General Clauses Act defines that the power of the authority who is having power to appoint also has the power to take disciplinary action. But on a perusal of the Knanaya Constitution produced by the learned counsel for the respondent along with the counter, it is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution for taking any disciplinary action by the Patriarch against the Metropolitan. However, it has mentioned only the OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025 2025:KER:51096 Asst. Metropolitan or a priest can be made in charge of the Metropol- itan only in case the Metropolitan dies or goes on long leave due to illness. It is worth to mention about Article 85(C) of the Knanaya Con- stitution, whether it empowers when a Metropolitan passes away, becomes seriously ill or resents from the office, arrangements must be made as outlined in Clause 85(C), wherein, if there is any Assistant Metropolitan or Metropolitan Senior among them, that person shall be assigned the duties and respond to the Asst.Metropolitan, otherwise administrated, elected according to Clause 86, shall assume those responsibilities. As per Article 86, when the Metropolitan passes away, or seriously ill, or resigns from the office, then the only throne of An- tioch is to authorise the Administrator and Deputy Metropolitan of Malankara to perform sacramental functions. Therefore, there is a controversy with respect to exercising power by the Patriarchs by adopting the church constitution of 2002. The Knanaya Constitution, 1918 not empower any such right to the Patriarchs for taking any OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025 2025:KER:51096 disciplinary action against the Metropolitan. Therefore, until the full-fledged trial, the power of the Patriarch is established by the 1 st defendant in the suit. Therefore, taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in 1958, 1995, and 2017, the 1934 Constitution and Knanaya Constitution, 1918 have already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where there is no power assigned to the petitioner/ Patriarch for taking any disciplinary action. Section 16 of the General Clause Act would apply only to the Government Authorities or State Government, or Central Government legislations, but not to the Knanaya Constitution, which applies the private persons/private offices. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the Patriarchs have the power to initiate the disciplinary action, as they have the power to appoint the Metropoli- tan, cannot be acceptable. Since the Metropolitan has been elected by the Association by way of election and only approved by the Patriarch His Holiness as 'Kaivappu', he is only a spiritual head, and it cannot OP(C) NOs.819, 825 & 826 OF 2025 2025:KER:51096 be said that he has temporal control over the Metropolitan at this stage.