2017 (7) TMI 1440 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking declaration that the Defendant No. 1 (D-1) Church, its assets, including the educational institutions are liable to be administered only in accordance with Udampady executed on 30.12.2013 - settlement of scheme for administration of the church and its assets, to appoint a Receiver, conduct elections after preparing proper voters list irrespective of their factional affiliations and to entrust management to them - seeking Permanent injunction against 3rd Defendant restraining him from receiving the key of the church. HELD THAT - Following conclusions have been arrived at (i) Malankara Church is Episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of the Parish Churches and shall prevail. (ii) The decree in the 1995 judgment is completely in tune with the judgment. There is no conflict between the judgment and the decree. (iii) The 1995 judgment arising out of the representative suit is binding and operates as res judicata with respect to the matters it has decided, in the wake of provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 and Explanation 6 to Section 11 Code of Civil Procedure. The same binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who have interest in the Malankara Church. Findings in earlier representative suit, i.e., Samudayam suit are also binding on Parish Churches/Parishioners to the extent issues have been decided. (iv) As the 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the Parish Churches, it is not open to any individual Church, to decide to have their new Constitution like that of 2002 in the so-called exercise of right Under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It is also not permissible to create a parallel system of management in the churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. (v) The Primate of Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is Catholicos. He enjoys spiritual powers as well, as the Malankara Metropolitan. Malankara Metropolitan has the prime jurisdiction regarding temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of Malankara Church subject to the riders provided in the 1934 Constitution. (vi) Full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point. Consequently, he cannot interfere in the governance of Parish Churches by appointing Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests) etc. and thereby cannot create a parallel system of administration. The appointment has to be made as per the power conferred under the 1934 Constitution on the concerned Diocese, Metropolitan etc. (vii) Though it is open to the individual member to leave a Church in exercise of the right not to be a member of any Association and as per Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Parish Assembly of the Church by majority or otherwise cannot decide to move church out of the Malankara Church. Once a trust, is always a trust. (viii) When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of the beneficiaries, it is not open for the beneficiaries, even by a majority, to usurp its property or management. The Malankara Church is in the form of a trust in which, its properties have vested. As per the 1934 Constitution, the Parishioners though may individually leave the Church, they are not permitted to take the movable or immovable properties out of the ambit of 1934 Constitution without the approval of the Church hierarchy. (ix) The spiritual power of Patriarch has been set up by the Appellants clearly in order to violate the mandate of the 1995 judgment of this Court which is binding on the Patriarch, Catholicos and all concerned. (x) As per the historical background and the practices which have been noted, the Patriarch is not to exercise the power to appoint Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. Such powers are reserved to other authorities in the Church hierarchy. The Patriarch, thus, cannot be permitted to exercise the power in violation of the 1934 Constitution to create a parallel system of administration of Churches as done in 2002 and onwards. (xi) This Court has held in 1995 that the unilateral exercise of such power by the Patriarch was illegal. The said decision has also been violated. It was only in the alternative this Court held in the 1995 judgment that even if he has such power, he could not have exercised the same unilaterally which we have explained in this judgment. (xii) It is open to the Parishioners to believe in the spiritual supremacy of Patriarch or apostolic succession but it cannot be used to appoint Vicars, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. in contravention of the 1934 Constitution. (xiii) Malankara Church is Episcopal to the extent as provided in the 1934 Constitution, and the right is possessed by the Diocese to settle all internal matters and elect their own Bishops in terms of the said Constitution. (xiv) Appointment of Vicar is a secular matter. There is no violation of any of the rights encompassed Under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, if the appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests) etc. is made as per the 1934 Constitution. The Patriarch has no power to interfere in such matters under the guise of spiritual supremacy unless the 1934 Constitution is amended in accordance with law. The same is binding on all concerned. (xv) Udampadis do not provide for appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. Even otherwise once the 1934 Constitution has been adopted, the appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (high priests) etc. is to be as per the 1934 Constitution. It is not within the domain of the spiritual right of the Patriarch to appoint Vicar, Priests etc. The spiritual power also vests in the other functionaries of Malankara Church. (xvi) The functioning of the Church is based upon the division of responsibilities at various levels and cannot be usurped by a single individual howsoever high he may be. The division of powers under the 1934 Constitution is for the purpose of effective management of the Church and does not militate against the basic character of the church being Episcopal in nature as mandated thereby. The 1934 Constitution cannot be construed to be opposed to the concept of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch. It cannot as well, be said to be an instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression on the Parishioners who believe in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. (xvii) The Church and the Cemetery cannot be confiscated by anybody. It has to remain with the Parishioners as per the customary rights and nobody can be deprived of the right to enjoy the same as a Parishioner in the Church or to be buried honourably in the cemetery, in case he continues to have faith in the Malankara Church. The property of the Malankara Church in which is also vested the property of the Parish Churches, would remain in trust as it has for the time immemorial for the sake of the beneficiaries and no one can claim to be owners thereof even by majority and usurp the Church and the properties. (xviii) The faith of Church is unnecessarily sought to be divided vis- -vis the office of Catholicos and the Patriarch as the common faith of the Church is in Jesus Christ. In fact an effort is being made to take over the management and other powers by raising such disputes as to supremacy of Patriarch or Catholicos to gain control of temporal matters under the garb of spirituality. There is no good or genuine cause for disputes which have been raised. (xix) The authority of Patriarch had never extended to the government of temporalities of the Churches. By questioning the action of the Patriarch and his undue interference in the administration of Churches in violation of the 1995 judgment, it cannot be said that the Catholicos faction is guilty of repudiating the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. The Patriarch faction is to be blamed for the situation which has been created post 1995 judgment. The property of the Church is to be managed as per the 1934 Constitution. The judgment of 1995 has not been respected by the Patriarch faction which was binding on all concerned. Filing of writ petitions in the High Court by the Catholicos faction was to deter the Patriarch/his representatives to appoint the Vicar etc. in violation of the 1995 judgment of this Court. (xx) The 1934 Constitution is enforceable at present and the plea of its frustration or breach is not available to the Patriarch faction. Once there is Malankara Church, it has to remain as such including the property. No group or denomination by majority or otherwise can take away the management or the property as that would virtually tantamount to illegal interference in the management and illegal usurpation of its properties. It is not open to the beneficiaries even by majority to change the nature of the Church, its property and management. The only method to change management is to amend the Constitution of 1934 in accordance with law. It is not open to the Parish Churches to even frame bye-laws in violation of the provisions of the 1934 Constitution. (xxi) The Udampadies of 1890 and 1913 are with respect to administration of Churches and are not documents of the creation of the Trust and are not of utility at present and even otherwise cannot hold the field containing provisions inconsistent with the 1934 Constitution, as per Section 132 thereof. The Udampady also cannot hold the field in view of the authoritative pronouncements made by this Court in the earlier judgments as to the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution. (xxii) The 1934 Constitution does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or future any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent in the Malankara Church properties and only provides a system of administration and as such is not required to be registered. In any case, the Udampadis for the reasons already cited, cannot supersede the 1934 Constitution only because these are claimed to be registered. (xxiii) In otherwise Episcopal church, whatever autonomy is provided in the Constitution for the Churches is for management and necessary expenditure as provided in Section 22 etc. (xxiv) The formation of 2002 Constitution is the result of illegal and void exercise. It cannot be recognized and the parallel system created thereunder for administration of Parish Churches of Malankara Church cannot hold the field. It has to be administered under the 1934 Constitution. (xxv) It was not necessary, after amendment of the plaint in Mannathur Church matter, to adopt the procedure once again of representative suit Under Order 1 Rule 8 Code of Civil Procedure. It remained a representative suit and proper procedure has been followed. It was not necessary to obtain fresh leave. (xxvi) The 1934 Constitution is appropriate and adequate for management of the Parish Churches, as such there is no necessity of framing a scheme Under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (xxvii) The plea that in face of the prevailing dissension between the two factions and the remote possibility of reconciliation, the religious services may be permitted to be conducted by two Vicars of each faith cannot be accepted as that would amount to patronizing parallel systems of administration. (xxviii) Both the factions, for the sake of the sacred religion they profess and to preempt further bickering and unpleasantness precipitating avoidable institutional degeneration, ought to resolve their differences if any, on a common platform if necessary by amending the Constitution further in accordance with law, but by no means, any attempt to create parallel systems of administration of the same Churches resulting in law and order situations leading to even closure of the Churches can be accepted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the 1995 judgment is binding on the appellants.
2. Abandonment of pleas/objections to the revival of Catholicate and the validity of the 1934 Constitution.
3. Parishioners' right to follow their faith under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and manage affairs under Article 26.
4. Repudiation of the spiritual authority/supremacy of the Patriarch by the Catholicos.
5. The 1934 Constitution as a contract and its enforceability.
6. Enforceability of Udampady and the 2002 Constitution.
7. Effect of non-registration of the 1934 Constitution and the registered Udampady.
8. Maintainability of the Mannathur Church suit.
9. Framing of a scheme under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
10. Whether the interim arrangement should continue.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the 1995 judgment is binding on the appellants:
The 1995 judgment arising from a representative suit is binding on all parties interested in the Malankara Church, including those not named in the suit. This is supported by Order 1 Rule 8 and Explanation 6 to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provide that decisions in representative suits bind all interested parties. The judgment and decree are consistent and binding, and the issues decided therein cannot be re-litigated.

2. Abandonment of pleas/objections to the revival of Catholicate and the validity of the 1934 Constitution:
The 1995 judgment found that the Patriarch had abandoned objections to the revival of Catholicate and the 1934 Constitution. This finding is based on historical facts and the Patriarch's actions, including the issuance of Kalpana and the establishment of Catholicos. The argument that the 1934 Constitution is a contract that can be discharged due to breach by the Catholicos is not tenable, as the historical context and judicial findings support its continued enforceability.

3. Parishioners' right to follow their faith under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and manage affairs under Article 26:
While individuals have the right to follow their faith under Article 25, the appointment of Vicars and Priests is a secular matter governed by the 1934 Constitution. The Constitution provides a detailed system of administration, and the Diocesan Metropolitan has the authority to appoint Vicars. The spiritual powers of the Patriarch have reached a vanishing point, and he cannot unilaterally appoint Vicars or create a parallel system of administration.

4. Repudiation of the spiritual authority/supremacy of the Patriarch by the Catholicos:
The Catholicos faction's actions, including the filing of writ petitions, were in response to the Patriarch's unilateral appointments, which violated the 1995 judgment. The Catholicos faction cannot be said to have repudiated the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. The Patriarch's faction is more to blame for the unrest and should respect the 1995 judgment.

5. The 1934 Constitution as a contract and its enforceability:
The 1934 Constitution is not merely a contract but a binding document governing the administration of the Malankara Church. The argument that it has been breached and is no longer enforceable is rejected. The Constitution provides a comprehensive system for managing the Church and its properties, and any changes must be made through proper amendments, not by forming parallel systems.

6. Enforceability of Udampady and the 2002 Constitution:
The 1913 Udampady cannot prevail over the 1934 Constitution, which has been validated and is binding. The 2002 Constitution, created by the Patriarch faction, is illegal and void. The administration of the Church must be under the 1934 Constitution, and any inconsistent provisions in the Udampady are annulled.

7. Effect of non-registration of the 1934 Constitution and the registered Udampady:
The 1934 Constitution does not require registration as it does not create or transfer any right, title, or interest in property. The Udampady, even if registered, cannot override the 1934 Constitution. The argument based on non-registration is not applicable.

8. Maintainability of the Mannathur Church suit:
The suit is maintainable as a representative suit, and it was not necessary to obtain fresh leave after amending the plaint. The procedural requirements were met, and the suit was contested in a representative capacity.

9. Framing of a scheme under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
There is no need to frame a scheme under Section 92, as the 1934 Constitution provides adequate provisions for managing the Church and its properties. The existing system is sufficient to address the administrative needs.

10. Whether the interim arrangement should continue:
The plea to allow religious services by two Vicars of each faith is rejected, as it would create a parallel system of administration, which is not legally permissible. The administration must be under the 1934 Constitution.

Conclusion:
The appeals are dismissed, and the 1934 Constitution remains binding for the administration of the Malankara Church and its Parish Churches. The interim arrangement of having two Vicars is not accepted, and the Church must be managed as per the 1934 Constitution.