No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MOST REV. P.M.A.METROPOLITAN AND ORS. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MORAN MAR MARTHOMA MATHEWS & ANR. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/02/1997
BENCH:
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C. SEN, S.B. MAJMUDAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1997
Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suhas C.Sen
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majumdar
C.S. `Vaidyanathan, Harish N.Salve, F.S.Nariman, Raju
Ramachandran and T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advs., P.K. Manohar, roy
Abraham, Ms. Baby Krishnan, E.M.S. Anam, Ms. Lily Thomas,
Ms. K. V. Vijayakumar, P.J. Philips K.V. Mohan, T.G. N.
Nair, Ranjit Thomas, Sudarsh Menon, and S. Balakrishnan,
Advs. with them for the appearing parties.
O R D E R
The following order of the Court was delivered:
These matters are posted before us for orders with
respect to the drafting of the decree pursuant to this
Court's judgment delivered on January 20, 1995. By order
dated March 25, 1996, we had requested Ms. Manju Goel,
Registrar (Judicial - II) to prepare the decree in the light
of the judgment aforesaid, after notice to both the parties.
The learned Registrar had drafted a decree to which both
parties filed objections. In view of certain contentions
raised by the parties, the matter was remitted to the said
Registrar for revising the draft of the decree. She has
accordingly prepared a revised draft decree to which again
both parties have filed objections. We have heard the
counsel for both the parties and direct that the decree
shall be prepared in following manner.
In the first instance, the decree shall set out the ten
clauses found in Para 142 of the Judgment.
Then it shall set out the following portions from Para
141 of the Judgment. The first portion in Para 141 starts
with the words, "We are, however, of the opinion that in
this suit no declaration can be granted affecting the rights
of Parish churches" and ends with the words "any title to or
control over the properties held by the Parish churches".
The second portion in Para 141 begins with the words, "In
the state of such a pleading, the only observation" and ends
with the words "insofar as the said Constitution provides
for the same".
The decree shall then set out Para 150 which deals with
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Kananaya church.
The decree shall then say that the decree passed by the
High Court (decree under appeal) shall stand modified to the
extent indicated above.
PART II
In Part II of the order dated March 25, 1996, the
following sentence shall be inserted before the last
sentence: "The above direction is subject to the condition
that any and every person claiming to hold any office or
post in this church shall be bound by and shall swear
allegiance to the 1934 Constitution".
PART III
In Part I of the order dated March 25, 1996, we had
directed that Articles 71 and 46, as drafted by us shall
stand substituted in the place of the existing Articles 71
and 46 in the 1934 Constitution with effect from the date of
the said order. In Articles 71 and 46, which were directed
to be so substituted, an error has crept in. Instead of
mentioning "members of the Parish Assembly", the word
"families" is used. We, therefore, direct that wherever the
word "family" or "families" occur in the said two Articles,
as drafted by us, they shall be substituted by the words
"member" or members", as the case may be. it is made clear
that when we speak of the "members" in the said articles, we
refer to members as contemplated by and as mentioned in
clause (7) of the 1934 Constitution (which deals with Parish
church and Parish Assembly).
The first Proviso in Article 71 is deleted.
PART IV
In view of the aforementio ned controversies, it is
submitted by the counsel for the parties, no elections could
so far be held as contemplated and directed by the Judgment
of this Court. In Part I of the order dated March 25, 1996,
it was directed by this Court that the election of members
of the Association and the Diocesan Assemblies shall take
place within three months therefrom on the basis of the
amended/substituted Articles 71 and 46. The time for
conducting the said elections is extended upto and inclusive
of April 30, 1997.
Ordered accordingly.
The landmark Supreme Court order in the Malankara Church Case concerning the 1934 Church Constitution is a pivotal document in Indian ecclesiastical law, and this detailed analysis is now available on CaseOn. This specific order, dated February 5, 1997, provides the crucial post-judgment directives that shaped the final decree in the long-standing dispute within the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. While the main judgment was delivered in 1995, this subsequent order by a bench of Justices B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Suhas C. Sen, and S.B. Majmudar is a masterclass in translating judicial reasoning into a precise, enforceable legal instrument.
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was how to accurately draft the final decree to reflect its comprehensive 1995 judgment, especially after both the petitioner and respondent raised objections to the initial drafts. The challenge was to create an unambiguous decree that correctly incorporated the court's findings on church governance, property rights, and the supremacy of the 1934 Constitution, while also addressing procedural errors and delays in implementation.
The Court exercised its inherent powers to ensure its judgments are correctly and effectively implemented. The 'rules' guiding its decision were not external statutes but its own prior judgment and orders. Specifically, the Court mandated that the decree be drafted in strict accordance with:
The Court meticulously broke down its directions into four parts to resolve the controversies surrounding the draft decree. This systematic approach aimed to eliminate any ambiguity and provide a clear path forward.
1. Structuring the Core Decree: The Court first ordered that the decree must begin by setting out the ten operative clauses from Para 142 of the 1995 judgment. It then specified that key portions from Para 141 be included to clarify that the judgment did not grant a blanket declaration over the properties of individual Parish churches, thereby respecting their distinct legal status. The inclusion of Para 150, dealing with the Kananaya church, ensured that all specific findings were formally part of the executable decree.
2. Reinforcing Constitutional Allegiance: In a crucial addition, the Court directed that a new sentence be inserted into a previous order. This new clause mandated that any person holding an office or post within the church must be bound by and swear allegiance to the 1934 Constitution. This reinforced the Constitution's supremacy as the central pillar of church administration, a key finding of the main judgment.
3. Correcting Critical Terminology: The Court identified and corrected a significant error in its earlier draft of the amended Articles 71 and 46 of the 1934 Constitution. The word "families" had been used instead of "member" or "members" when referring to the Parish Assembly. The Court ordered this to be corrected, fundamentally clarifying that representation and rights within the Parish Assembly are based on individual membership, not family units. This seemingly minor correction has profound implications for parish governance and representation. Understanding such nuances is critical for legal professionals, and services like CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs can be invaluable in quickly grasping the core implications of these specific judicial rulings.
4. Acknowledging Practical Realities: Recognizing that the ongoing disputes had made it impossible to hold elections as previously directed, the Court extended the deadline. The time for conducting elections for the Association and Diocesan Assemblies, based on the newly amended Articles, was extended to April 30, 1997. This demonstrated the Court's pragmatic approach, ensuring its directives were not just legally sound but also practically achievable.
The Supreme Court's order of February 5, 1997, was a decisive procedural step that gave practical effect to its historic 1995 judgment. By providing a clear, step-by-step roadmap for the Registrar, correcting critical errors in previous drafts, and granting a necessary extension for compliance, the Court moved the long-standing dispute closer to a practical and enforceable resolution. It underscored the principle that a judgment's true value lies in its clear and accurate implementation through a well-drafted decree.
The Supreme Court directed the Registrar (Judicial - II) to prepare the final decree by taking the following specific actions:
For lawyers and legal practitioners, this order is a crucial study in post-judgment procedure and the art of drafting decrees. It highlights the meticulous attention to detail required to ensure a court's ruling is not lost in translation and can be executed without ambiguity. It serves as a reminder that the case is not over until the decree is perfected.
For law students, this document provides a practical illustration of the distinction between a 'judgment' (the reasoning) and a 'decree' (the formal, executable order). It showcases the Supreme Court's role not just in laying down the law, but also in supervising its implementation, especially in complex, multi-party litigation with a long history of conflict.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional for any legal concerns.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....