TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Civil Courts' Jurisdiction on Fundamental Rights Violations & Church Authority Disputes</h1> The court held that civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits for violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution. The Places of Worship ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Effect of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.3. Validity of the ex-communication of the Catholicos.4. Relationship between the Patriarch and the Catholicos.5. Nature and status of Parish Churches.6. Legal status of the Patriarch of Antioch.7. Applicability and binding nature of the 1934 Constitution.Summary:1. Maintainability of the Suit Under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code:The court held that civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The expression 'civil nature' in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is broad and includes religious matters with civil consequences. The court ruled that Section 9 is very wide, and in the absence of ecclesiastical courts, any religious dispute is cognizable, except in rare cases where the declaration sought may involve what constitutes a religious rite.2. Effect of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991:The court found that the Act does not bar cases where declarations are sought for a period before the Act came into force or for enforcement of rights recognized before the Act's commencement.3. Validity of the Ex-communication of the Catholicos:The ex-communication of the Catholicos by the Patriarch was invalid. The charges for ex-communication were not permissible or relevant grounds. The court held that the grounds cited, such as the use of the title 'Holiness' and the assertion of being seated on the Throne of St. Thomas, were not valid reasons for ex-communication.4. Relationship Between the Patriarch and the Catholicos:The court concluded that the relationship between the Patriarch of Antioch and the Catholicos of the East at Malankara is one of two independent spiritual authorities, with the Patriarch being the highest in the hierarchy. The Catholicos and the Patriarch are followers of the same creed, namely, the Syrian Orthodox Church. The Patriarch has no temporal powers over the churches, and the spiritual powers of the Patriarch can be exercised by the Catholicos in accordance with the 1934 Constitution.5. Nature and Status of Parish Churches:The Parish Churches are not autonomous or independent but are constituent parts of the Malankara Church. They enjoy a degree of autonomy, with the administration of day-to-day affairs vested in the Parish Assembly and committee elected by the Parish Assembly, subject to the supervisory powers of the Metropolitan and the provisions of the 1934 Constitution. The court declared that all churches, except those of the Evangelistic Association or Simhasana or St. Mary, are under the spiritual and temporal control of the Malankara Association according to the 1934 Constitution.6. Legal Status of the Patriarch of Antioch:The Patriarch of Antioch is recognized as a corporation sole, meaning his identity is continuous, and he remains the spiritual head. The court emphasized that the personality of the Patriarch is not being split, and his integrality is not being destroyed.7. Applicability and Binding Nature of the 1934 Constitution:The 1934 Constitution, as amended from time to time, governs the churches attached to the Malankara Association. The court held that the Constitution was validly framed and is binding on all parties. The Constitution provides for the administration of the Malankara Church and its constituent Parish Churches.Conclusion:The court concluded that the disputes between the two groups should be resolved based on the 1934 Constitution, which governs the relationship between the Patriarch, the Catholicos, and the Parish Churches. The court declared that the Constitution is binding and that the Catholicos and the Patriarch are followers of the same creed, with the Patriarch being the highest spiritual authority. The ex-communication of the Catholicos was declared invalid, and the Parish Churches were found to be under the control of the Malankara Association according to the 1934 Constitution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
