K. S. VARGHESE & ORS. versus ST. PETERS & PAULS SYRIAN ORTH. & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 03-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) 9 S.C.R. 1 
K. S. VARGHESE & ORS. 
v. 
ST. PETER'S & PAUL'S SYRIAN ORTH. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3674 of2015) 
JULY 03,2017 
[ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India: 
Arts.25 and 26 - Malankara church - Management of affairs 
of Malankara church - Perpetual fight between Patriarch faction 
and Catho/icos faction - Historical background discussed in *Most 
Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan case popularly known as *1995 judgment 
A 
B 
c 
- Whether the 1995 Judgment is binding oil the appellants -
Jn the 
1995 judgment, the Supreme Court referring to the Year 1654 events, 
observed that the authority of the Patriarch extended only to spiritual D 
affairs but not to the temporal affairs of the Malankara Church -
The Court also observed that the Patriarch in the year 1972 could 
not have exercised the power of appointment of getting ordaining 
the priests and deacons through his delegate - The Court clearly 
held that even if it is held that by Kalpana 's A-13 and A-14, the 
Patriarch is not denuded of the powers delegated by him to the 
E 
Catholicos, he could not have unilateral(v exercised those po-Wiers 
which were delegated and he could have exercised those powers 
thereafter in' consultation with the Catholicos and the Malankara 
Sabha (Association) and of course in accordance with the 1934 
Constitution -
The Court also found that it was not open to the 
Patriarch or his followers to contend that revival of Catholicate 
was not in accordance with the religious tenets and faith of the 
Syrian Jacobite Christian Church; that the Constitution of 1934 
was not duly and validly passed and that the revival of Catholicate 
reduced the power of Patriarch to a vanishing point - The power 
and authority of the Catholicos as per Kalpanas A-13 and A-14 
G 
were affirmed, re-enforced and enlarged in the 1934 Constitution -
F 
The said findings and the declaration in the decree that was passed 
in the 1995 judgment, in a representative suit, is binding - As per 
the mandate of the Or.I r.8(6), CP(~ the finding that was recorded 
in the earlier suit that was decided in 1958 as well as in 1995 is 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R . 
. 
! 
A binding insofai" as the questions were decided in a representative 
character - This Court has decided the issue in 1995 suit to the 
extent that the parties were having the common interest as 
contemplated in Or.I r.8 and left open issues with respect to temporal 
matters in the absence of Parish Churches - The decree in the 1995 
B judgment is completely in tune with the judgment - There is no 
conflict between the judgment and the decree - Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 - Or.I r.8. 
Arts.25 and 26. - Chur'ch - Parish church - Appointment of 
Vicar - Whether Parishioners have a right to follow their own faith 
under Art.25 and appointment of Vicar, priest and Deacons and 
C manage affairs under Art.26 - When the Church is a Parish Church 
and since time immemorial it is a Parish Church and is a part of 
Malankara Church, it has to perpetually remain as such - Under 
the garb of pursuing their faith of the Patriarch being superior, 
they cannot create a parallel system of appointing a Vicar for 
D performing spiritual/religious ceremonies conforming to that faith, 
as an appointm~nt of Vicar is not a spiritual matter - It is a secular 
matter - It is open to any Parishioner to have faith in the spiritual 
superiority of the Patriarch - Church. 
Arts.19, 25 and 26 - Right to freedom of religion -A right to 
E freedom of professing one's faith and religion is enshrined in Art.25 
of the Constitution which gives freedom of faith and worship, subject 
to public order, morality and health and other provisions of Part Ill 
of the Constitution - The freedom is guaranteed to 'persons' as 
opposed to 'cititens' as in Art.19 -
Therefore, each Parishioner 
F 
has a right to freedom of religion - The 1934 Constitution cannot 
be said to be in violation of Arts.25 and 26 of the Constitution of 
India. 
Church: 
1934 Constitution - Power of Diocesan Metropolitan - Held: 
G The Diocesan Metropolitan has the authority to appoint, remove or 
transfer the Vicar and other priests - He has been given the authori~y 
to appoint a Vicar for a wholesome purpose in the 1934 Constitution 
as the Patriarch of Antioch abroad cannot exercise the deep and 
pervasive control over the management of churches such as the , 
appointment of Vicar which is a secular matter and not a spiritual 
H 
one
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.