04-April-2007
SOCM FORUM message dt. 4th April 2007
Supreme Court rejected Methran Kakshi's demand
for police protection for their Catholicos
to enter into Jacobite Churches
SC also declared that some remarks regarding the validity of constitutions declared in the 2003 HC judgment (favouring Jacobite Syrian Church) as well as in the recent Kathiparathadam Chruch judgment (favouring Methran Kakshi) will not stand
Cases regarding the ownership of individual churches has to start from lower civil courts
The Supreme Court in its verdict today morning
categorically rejected the IOC's appeal for police protection for their
Catholicos to enter into Jacobite Churches. The Supreme court also rejected the
request of IOC to replace their present Catholicos name in place of late Mathews
II Bawa as petitioner.
The SC also noted that the individual churches are free to take up their cases
to the respective court for settlement of their issues. It also noted that some
remarks in the High Court's verdict of 2003 and the recent High Court's Single
Bench verdict on Kathiparathadam Chruch had some fundamental mistakes in some
areas and hence it will not stand.
The verdict on individual churches that they can present their cases in their
own capacity to the respective court had far reaching consequences and brought
the 100 years Church case history to square one. In the near future we can
witness that there will be starting of a flood of civil court cases once again,
whereever IOC tries for forceful occupation of Jacobite Churches.
More details of the verdict and its analysis will be published very soon in SOCM
forum and in Viswasasamrakshakan.
By this verdict, both the faction got one more chance for a creative dialogue
and settle the problem in a Christian spirit.
SOCM NEWS BUREAU - New Delhi
OBSERVATION BY ADV. P J PHILIP ON THE SC JUDGMENT
(Source: SOCM forum dt. 4th April 2007)
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAS DISPOSED
OFF THE APPEALS LEAVING OPEN ALL ISSUES TO BE DECIDED IN CIVIL SUITS BETWEEN THE
PARTIES. NOW THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WILL HAVE TO INSTITUTE SUITS WITH RESPECT TO
EACH PARISH CHURCH . THIS IS TOTAL DEFEAT FOR THE ORTHODOX CHURCH.
PHILIP.P.J/ADVOCATE
=======================================
THE FOLLOWING IS THE ORDER IN A NUTSHELL.
=======================================
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT – CHURCH CASES
1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has today disposed of
Civil Appeal No. 5460 to 5466 of 2004 by Judgment rendered by Justice S.B.Sinha
and Markandeya Katju. The said Civil Appeals were filed challenging the judgment
dated 28/1/2003 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No.
22946 of 2002 filed under Articles 226 and 144 of the Constitution of India by
the Catholicos and Malankara Metropolitan of the Malankara Orthodox Church.
2.In the above said Writ Petition the petitioners mentioned above prayed for
Police protection from the Kerala State Authorities to enter into and conduct
religions services and also to manage the properties belonging to the parish
church of the Jacobite Syrian Church under Baselios Thomas –I, Catholicos and
Metropolitan Trustee of the church. While dismissing the said writ petition the
Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala proceeded to interpret the judgment
of the Supreme Court of India in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & Ors. Vs. Moran
Mar Marthoma Mathews delivered in the year 1995 holding that the said judgment
will not bind the properties of the parish churches and also the parish church
have the right to opt out of the Malankara Association of the Malankara church
and join any other association in exercise of their fundamental right under
Article 19(1) (c) read with Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
3. The Catholicos and Metropolitans of Malankara Orthodox church challenged the
said findings of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, in the Supreme
Court of India which has been disposed of today.
4. The Supreme Court of India in its judgment disposing of the appeals has inter
alia held as follows:
i. The writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
police protection to enter into the parish churches of the Jacobite church could
not have been maintained because it involved disputed questions of facts
relating to the title control and management of the properties which are
admittedly the subject matter of several suits and appeals in various Courts in
the State of Kerala.
ii. While dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
by the High Court of Kerala, the disputed questions between the rival parties
regarding the interpretation of the 1995 Judgment of the Supreme Court of India,
right of the parish churches under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Indian Constitution
need not have been decided. It is a subject matter of pending suits and appeals.
iii. The disputed questions relating to the right to manage an administer in the
parish churches can be decided in civil suits uninfluenced by the findings
contain in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala. The
Civil Courts wherein the suits are pending will be entitled to independently
consider and decide the questions relating to the management and administration
of the parish churches.
iv. The fact that different benches are entering conflicting findings relating
to the applicability of the 1995 judgment of the Supreme Court of India was
noticed and judgment entered by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Kerala W.P. No. 32114 of 2006 dated 28/2/2007 was specifically considered. It
was held that the findings on the interpretation of the 1995 Supreme Court
Judgment should not have been gone into in the said writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and then it was observed that since there is an
appeal pending before the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala challenging
the said judgment no orders are being made.
v. It was held that the High Court should not have entered decision on the
question of facts/ question of right to management of the administration of the
properties of the parish churches specifically when parish churches numbering
about 2000 are not before the court and when such questions are pending
consideration in civil suits. The civil suits shall be disposed of without being
influence by the observations given by the High Court and the courts wherein the
suits are pending shall be entitled to independent consideration of the
questions arising in the said suits.
vi. It was make clear that the Supreme Court of India is not expressing any
opinion regarding the correctness or otherwise of the findings entered into by
the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 22946 of 2002.
vii. The interlocutory application filed by DIDIMOS –I of the Malankara Orthodox
church claiming that is the successor of the first appellant, Marthoma Mathews
II, was not allowed because of the pendency of the civil suit relating the said
question between two rival groups of the Malankara Church.