Supreme Court Upholds 1934 Constitution in Malankara Church Disputes: K.S. Varghese & Ors. vs. St. Peter’s & Paul’s Syrian Orth. & Ors. (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 3 July 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 598

Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Amitava Roy, J.

Can a church faction claim autonomy from the established constitution of its parent body? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a series of appeals concerning the Malankara Church, a division of the Orthodox Syrian Church. The core issue revolved around the applicability of the 1934 Constitution to various Parish Churches and the extent of authority of the Patriarch of Antioch versus the Catholicos of the East. The bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, delivered a judgment that reinforced the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution, clarifying the powers and limitations of various authorities within the Malankara Church.

Case Background

The Malankara Church, rooted in the Orthodox Syrian tradition, has been plagued by disputes between the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction. These disputes concern spiritual and temporal control over Parish Churches. The historical context is crucial: the Malankara Church was founded by St. Thomas, the Apostle, and is part of the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East. The Patriarch of Antioch is considered the prophet of the Syrian Church, while the Catholicos is the Primate of the Syrian Church of the East. The Malankara Church was earlier known as the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, but was also referred to as the Jacobite Church.

The disputes have their origins in the 16th century when the Portuguese compelled local Christians to accept Roman Catholic faith. Later, with the rise of British power, there was pressure to embrace Protestant faith. These disputes were settled by the “Cochin Award” in 1840, which divided church properties between Protestants and the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church. In 1876, the “Mulanthuruthy Synod” formed the Malankara Syrian Christian Association to manage church affairs, with the Malankara Metropolitan as its ex-officio President. The Malankara Church was then divided into seven dioceses, each headed by a Metropolitan.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from judgments of the High Court of Kerala in several cases. The Patriarch faction filed suit No. 43 of 2006 concerning the Kolenchery Church, seeking administration of the church and its assets according to a 1913 agreement. The Catholic group filed O.S. No. 10 of 2003 in the Varikoli Church matter, seeking declaration that the church is governed by the 1934 Constitution. Similarly, the Catholicos faction filed O.S. No. 41 of 2003 regarding the Mannathur Church, seeking declaration that the church is administered by the 1934 Constitution. The High Court of Kerala upheld the applicability of the 1934 Constitution in all these cases, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework for this case is the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church, which was adopted by the Malankara Association on December 26, 1934. This constitution outlines the structure and governance of the church, including the roles of the Parish Assembly, the Parish Managing Committee, the Diocesan Assembly, the Diocesan Council, the Malankara Metropolitan, the Catholicos, and the Patriarch. The constitution also addresses matters concerning faith, order, and discipline. Section 132 of the 1934 Constitution states that all agreements, offices, and practices which are not consistent with the provisions of this Constitution are hereby made ineffective and are annulled.

The Supreme Court also considered the impact of previous judgments, including the 1958 judgment in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors., and the 1995 judgment in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma. The Court also took into account Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to manage religious affairs, subject to public order, morality and health.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Patriarch Faction):

• The 1995 judgment is not binding on the Parish Churches as they were not parties to the case.
• The 1934 Constitution is a contract that has been breached by the Catholicos faction, who have repudiated the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch.
• The Patriarch’s spiritual authority is an essential part of their faith, protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.
• Parishioners have a right to follow their own faith and manage their own affairs under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
• The 1934 Constitution is merely an agreement and cannot override fundamental rights.
• The Udampady of 1913, being a registered document, should govern the Kolenchery Church.
• The 1995 judgment did not address property rights of the Parish Churches, hence the decision is not binding.
• The Catholicos faction has not come with clean hands and is not entitled to discretionary relief.

Arguments by the Respondents (Catholicos Faction):

• The 1934 Constitution is valid and binding on all Parish Churches.
• The Patriarch’s authority does not extend to the temporal affairs of the Malankara Church.
• The revival of the Catholicate in 1912 was valid and the powers of the Catholicos were affirmed in the 1934 Constitution.
• The Patriarch himself accepted the 1934 Constitution and the authority of the Catholicos in 1958 and 1964.
• The 1995 judgment has upheld the validity of the 1934 Constitution.
• The 2002 Constitution of the Patriarch faction is a subterfuge to bypass the judgment of this Court.
• The Parish Churches are constituent units of Malankara Church and have a fair degree of autonomy subject to the supervisory powers of the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association as per the 1934 Constitution.
• The Udampady of 1913 is no longer valid due to Section 132 of the 1934 Constitution.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the 1995 judgment is binding on the appellants, and if so, to what extent?
2. Whether the pleas/objections to the revival of the Catholicate and the validity of the 1934 Constitution stand abandoned?
3. Whether Parishioners have a right to follow their own faith under Article 25 and manage their affairs under Article 26 of the Constitution?
4. Whether the Catholicos have repudiated the spiritual authority/supremacy of the Patriarch?
5. Whether the 1934 Constitution is in the nature of a contract and enforceable at present?
6. What is the enforceability and binding nature of the Udampady and the 2002 Constitution?
7. What is the effect of non-registration of the 1934 Constitution and of a registered Udampady?
8. Whether the Mannathur Church suit is maintainable?
9. Whether a scheme should be framed under Section 92 of the CPC?
10. Whether the interim arrangement should continue?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira & Ors., AIR 1959 SC 31:* Followed to uphold the validity of the 1934 Constitution.
• Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 286:* Followed to affirm the powers of the Catholicos and the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution.
• Sha Mulchand & Co. Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills, (1954) SCR 351:* Cited but distinguished as not applicable to the facts of this case.
• Other authorities:* Cited to support various points of law, but ultimately the Court relied on the 1934 Constitution and previous Supreme Court judgments.

The Court held that the Patriarch faction’s arguments were not legally tenable and that the 1934 Constitution is the binding legal framework for the Malankara Church and all its Parish Churches.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the historical background, the Kalpanas issued by the Patriarch, the previous judgments of the Supreme Court, and the provisions of the 1934 Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Patriarch’s authority was limited to spiritual affairs, while the temporal and ecclesiastical administration is vested in the Malankara Metropolitan and the Catholicos. The Court also rejected the argument that the 1934 Constitution was merely a contract, holding that it was avalid framework for governance of the Malankara Church.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision that the 1934 Constitution is binding on all Parish Churches of the Malankara Church. The Court held that the Patriarch faction’s arguments were not legally tenable. The Court also emphasized that the 1995 judgment was binding on all members of the Malankara Church, as it was a representative suit. The Court directed that the interim arrangement of having two Vicars should be discontinued, as it would patronize a parallel system of administration. The Court further clarified that the Parish Churches are constituent units of the Malankara Church and have a fair degree of autonomy, subject to the supervisory powers of the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association as per the 1934 Constitution.

Flowchart of Authority

Key Takeaways

This judgment reinforces the supremacy of the 1934 Constitution in the Malankara Church. The Supreme Court has clarified that the Patriarch’s authority is limited to spiritual matters, while the temporal and ecclesiastical administration is vested in the Catholicos and the Malankara Metropolitan. The judgment also confirms that Parish Churches are constituent units of the Malankara Church and have a fair degree of autonomy, subject to the supervisory powers of the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association as per the 1934 Constitution. The Court emphasized that the 1995 judgment was binding on all members of the Malankara Church and that the 2002 Constitution of the Patriarch faction is illegal and cannot be recognized. The Court also clarified that the Udampady of 1913 is no longer valid due to Section 132 of the 1934 Constitution. This judgment is a significant step towards resolving the long-standing disputes within the Malankara Church.