Most. Rev. P.M.A Metropolitan And Others v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews And Another, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Neutral Citations

1997 INSC 105

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

I.As Nos. 1-9 in C.As Nos. 4958-60 of 1990 with Nos. 4953-57, 4989 of 1990, 6070-74 of 1995 with I.As Nos. 10-27 & 31-32 in C.As Nos. 4958-60 of 1990, decided on February 5, 1997

Disposition

Advocates

C.S Vaidyanathan, Harish N. Salve, F.S Nariman, Raju Ramachandran and T.L.V Iyer, Senior Advocates (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, Advocates, with them) for the appearing parties.

Judges

Justice S.C. Sen
Justice S.B. Majmudar
Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy

Acts

1934 Constitution, clause (7)
Article 71
1934 Constitution, Articles 71 and 46
Article 46

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The matters came before the Court to finalise the drafting of the decree that would implement its judgment dated 20-6-1995. Pursuant to an order dated 25-3-1996, the Registrar (Judicial-II) was directed to prepare a draft decree after notifying both parties. Objections were filed by each side to the initial draft, prompting the Court to remit the matter for a revised draft. Objections were again received to the revised version. After hearing counsel for both parties, the Court issued detailed directions on how the decree is to be framed, corrected prior errors in Articles 71 and 46 of the 1934 Constitution, deleted the first proviso to Article 71, and extended the deadline for conducting elections that had been ordered in the earlier judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

The proper form and content of the final decree required to give effect to the Court’s judgment of 20-6-1995.
Correction of drafting errors in the substituted Articles 71 and 46 of the 1934 Constitution.
Whether the time for holding elections to the Association and Diocesan Assemblies should be extended in light of the decree-drafting controversies.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded issue-by-issue:

It directed that the decree must first reproduce the ten clauses set out in paragraph 142 of the original judgment, followed by two specified excerpts from paragraph 141, and finally paragraph 150 concerning the Kananaya Church.
The decree of the High Court under appeal is to stand modified to the extent stated in these directions.
In Part II of the earlier order (25-3-1996), a clarificatory sentence is inserted making office-holders in the church subject to and bound by the 1934 Constitution.
In Part I of that order, the Court had substituted new Articles 71 and 46. It noted an inadvertent use of the words “family/families” instead of “member/members” and ordered the necessary textual substitutions, explicitly linking “members” to clause (7) of the 1934 Constitution.
The first proviso to Article 71 is deleted.
Because the ongoing objections had delayed implementation, the Court extended the deadline for elections—originally three months from 25-3-1996—up to and including 30-4-1997.

Holding and Implications

ORDERED ACCORDINGLY: The Court finalised the form of the decree, corrected textual errors in Articles 71 and 46, deleted the first proviso to Article 71, inserted an additional compliance clause in Part II of the earlier order, and extended the deadline for mandated elections to 30-4-1997.

Implications: The ruling clarifies the operative text of the decree and the 1934 Constitution, ensuring that future ecclesiastical elections proceed on a corrected constitutional basis. The decision primarily affects the parties and church governance; it sets no new substantive precedent beyond decree-finalisation procedures.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Most. Rev. P.M.A Metropolitan And Others v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews And Another

Order

1. These matters are posted before us for orders with respect to the drafting of the decree pursuant to this Court's judgment delivered on 20-6-1995. By order dated 25-3-1996, 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 the following manner.

2. In the first instance, the decree shall set out the ten clauses found in para 142 of the judgment.

3. 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”.

4. The decree shall then set out para 150 which deals with Kananaya Church.

5. 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

6. In Part II of the order dated 25-3-1996, 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

7. In Part I of the order dated 25-3-1996, 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).

8. The first proviso in Article 71 is deleted.

Part IV

9. In view of the aforementioned 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 25-3-1996, 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 up to and inclusive of 30-4-1997.

10. Ordered accordingly.

Most. Rev. P.M.A Metropolitan And Others v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Most. Rev. P.M.A Metropolitan And Others v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews And Another

Comments