Supreme Court rejected Methran Kakshi's demand for police ...

April 4, 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 Church 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.

OBSERVATION BY ADV. P J PHILIP ON THE SC JUDGMENT
(Source: SOCM forum April 4, 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.
=======================================
THE FOLLOWING IS THE ORDER IN A NUTSHELL.
=======================================
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT – CHURCH CASES
PHILIP.P.J/ADVOCATE
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.