Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The 1st petitioner is St.George Tabore Church, Peechanikkadu, which is stated to be a constituent Parish Church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church within the Diocese of Anagamaly, which is represented in this proceedings by one K.M.Eldho, who is stated to be its trustee. The 2 nd petitioner is stated to be the Vicar appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan of the Diocese of Angamaly in accordance with the 1934 Constitution of Malankara Church and petitioners 3 and 4 are stated to be the parishioners of 1 st petitioner Church. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 6 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the 2 nd petitioner to conduct religious services in the 1st petitioner Church, its cemetery and chapels and petitioners 3 and 4 and other parishioners of the 1 st petitioner Church in participating such religious services without any let, hindrance or obstruction from respondents 7 to 9, their men, agents or followers and anybody claiming under them in the interest of justice. The further relief sought for is for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 6 to act strictly adhering to the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter's and St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church [2017 (15) SCC 333] and Ext.P4 judgment of the Principal Sub Court, North Paravur dated 13.05.2020 in O.S.No.92 of 2018 to ensure that no priest or prelate appointed otherwise than in accordance with Malankara Church Constitution of 1934 conduct any sacraments including Holy Mass in the 1st petitioner Church, its chapels, cemetery or the appurtenant buildings thereto.

8.15. In K.S. Varghese, before the Apex Court, it was submitted that, the Parishioners own the property of the Parish Church and the Cemetery and they cannot be deprived of that right by reason of the office holders of the Parish Churches by not subscribing to the 1934 Constitution. The attempt by Catholicos is to take away ancient Churches and bar the Parishioners from entry to the Churches and Cemetery. Repelling the said submission, the Apex Court held that, the properties would always remain to be Malankara Church properties. Only office-holders have to subscribe to the 1934 Constitution as held by the Court. The Parishioners can take no Church property away, neither Catholicos faction by majority and the submission is based on the misconception as to the nature of rights in such property. It has to remain in Malankara Church. Neither the Church nor the Cemetery can be confiscated by anybody. It has to remain with Parishioners as per the customary rights and nobody can be deprived of right one enjoys being a Parishioner in the Church or to be buried honourably in the cemetery, in case he continues to have faith in Malankara Church.

9. In Mathews Mar Koorilos (dead) v. M. Pappy (dead) [(2018) 9 SCC 672] the appellants/plaintiffs, namely, the Metropolitan of Quilon Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the Vicar appointed by him for St. Mary's Church, Kattachira filed O.S.No.187 of 1977 against the Parishioners of the Church, seeking a declaration that they have exclusive right to conduct religious services in the plaint Church, Cemetery and Kurisumthotty and prayed for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and others who do not obey the plaintiffs from entering the plaint Church and plaint schedule properties. The case of the plaintiffs was that as per Ext. A3 (original of which is Ext. B19) assignment-cum-gift deed dated 29.06.1972, the 1st defendant C.K. Koshy assigned the plaint schedule properties along with the Church and Cemetery, etc. situated thereon, to the Metropolitan, Quilon Diocese and that they are entitled to conduct religious services and to manage the Church and its properties. The Parishioners who question such authority are not entitled to hold any office as members of the Church Committee or to enter the Church.

10. In Fr. O.S. Kuriakose and others v. Fr. Andrews Chiravathara and others [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 2832 : 2020 (4) KHC SN 6] this Court held that the conclusions of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese, which has already been dealt with in extenso [in Paras.8.4 to 8.32 of SCC OnLine Ker], would make it explicitly clear that the findings in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan, which operates as res judicata is about the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution on the Parishioners and Parish Churches. It is not open to the Parishioners to contend that they can have their independent Constitution and not bound by the 1934 Constitution. Repelling the contention that the Parish Churches, even after the 1934 Constitution, can decide to make their own Constitution in the exercise of their fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, so as to follow the faith of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch, the Apex Court opined that, it would not be open to any faction or group to adopt any particular system of management of Churches and to have a parallel system of managing authorities under the guise of spiritual supremacy. No group or denomination can take away the Church and form another group for its management as that would virtually tantamount to usurping its properties and the Church itself. When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of beneficiaries, it is not open for beneficiaries even by majority to usurp its property or management. The Parishioners can have faith in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch but not in all the matters. They have to give equal importance in the matter of management of the 1934 Constitution and cannot be permitted to commit regular breach and devise ways to circumvent the judgment of the Court by one way or the other and under the garb of spiritual fight wrest the temporal control of the Churches. That the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point, has to be given the full meaning. No person under the guise of spiritual faith can be permitted to destroy a system which is prevailing for the management of Parish Churches and go on forming Constitution as per his will time and again. There is no need of any such Constitution as is framed in the year 2002. In K.S. Varghese, it was submitted that, the Parishioners own the property of the Parish Church and the Cemetery and they cannot be deprived of that right by reason of the office holders of the Parish Churches by not subscribing to the 1934 Constitution. Rejecting the said submission, the Apex Court held that, the properties would always remain to be Malankara Church properties. Only office holders have to subscribe to the 1934 Constitution as held by the Court. The Parishioners can take no Church property away, neither Catholicos faction by majority and the submission is based on the misconception as to the nature of rights in such property. It has to remain in Malankara Church. Neither the Church nor the Cemetery can be confiscated by anybody. It has to remain with Parishioners as per the customary rights and nobody can be deprived of right one enjoys being a Parishioner in the Church or to be buried honourably in the Cemetery, in case he continues to have faith in Malankara Church. Once there is a Malankara Church it has to remain as such. No group or denomination can take away the Church and form another group for its management as that would virtually tantamount to usurping its properties and the Church itself. When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of beneficiaries, it is not open for beneficiaries even by majority to usurp its property or management. In K.S. Varghese, the Apex Court noticed that, to circumvent the 1995 judgment the Patriarch faction created illegally a parallel system of administration and also formed the 2002 Constitution, which was totally uncalled for and impermissible. After formation of the 2002 Constitution they held separate meetings of Patriarch groups, and entire system was usurped. In the case of Mannathoor Church, it was argued that the Church is having its own Constitution in the form of an Udambadi of 1980, which was a registered document, which will prevail over the 1934 Constitution. Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court held that the 1934 Constitution is applicable to the Parish Churches under the Malankara Church. The submission that the Udampady will prevail cannot be accepted in view of the provisions made in Section 132 of the 1934 Constitution to the effect that all agreements, which are not consistent with the provisions of the Constitution, are made ineffective and annulled and also in view of the finding in the 1958 Samudayam matter that the Constitution had been validly adopted and is applicable. The question cannot be re-agitated and reopened under the guise of Udampady. Udampady cannot hold the field for administration of such Parish Churches. Udampady is not a document by which the Church came to be established. It is with respect to its management only. Udampady cannot prevail over the Constitution that has been adopted for all Malankara Churches and is holding the field. The Malankara Church, its properties and other matters are to be governed by the 1934 Constitution and even majority of Parishioners has no right to take away and usurp the Church itself or to create new system of management contrary to the 1934 Constitution. It was a trust created as Malankara Church that is supreme, for once a trust always a trust. In Mathews Mar Koorilos the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reiterated that, as per the consistent view taken in Thukalan Paulo Avira, Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and K.S. Varghese, 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the Parishioners. The Parish Church has to be managed as per the powers conferred under the 1934 Constitution. It is not open to any individual Church to have a parallel system of management in the Churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy in the Patriarch. As held in K.S. Varghese, full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point.