2021 (4) TMI 1349 - SC - Indian Laws

Article 32 Limits: Scope of Relief and Jurisdiction Clarified by Court

JOHN PAILY & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

The Court found the petition under Article 32 to be an abuse of process due to seeking reliefs beyond its purview regarding control over Church ... Seeking direction to set up an independent Tribunal comprising of retired High Court judges who can look into the claims of each parish Church to determine which faction/denomination must have control over each such Church - handing over of the management of concerned Church to the denomination constituting majority, or in the alternative, direct such Independent Tribunal to partition all disputed Churches and their properties equitably - protection of Churches belonging to members of the Patriarch faction/denomination and the exercise of their religious freedom - enforcement and protection of fundamental rights of the Petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India - protection by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India - seeking declaration to the effect that Petitioners and members belonging to the same religious denomination have the right to practice and profess their religious beliefs. HELD THAT:- A mandamus cannot be issued by this Court for setting up an adjudicatory body or tribunal. Entry 11A of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution deals with, inter alia, “constitution and organization of all courts, except the Supreme Court and the High Courts”. Having due regard to the provisions of Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution, no such mandamus can be issued by this Court. Nor can a direction be issued by this Court to the legislature of a State to enact a law. As the petitioners have themselves indicated in the course of the synopsis, the judgment of this Court in K.S. VARGHESE AND ORS. VERSUS ST. PETER'S AND PAUL'S SYRIAN ORTH. AND ORS. [2017 (7) TMI 1440 - SUPREME COURT], is the reason for instituting the writ petition under Article 32 since the petitioners consider themselves to be aggrieved by the judgment. The remedy of a party which is aggrieved by a judgment and order of this Court cannot certainly lie by instituting a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Such a petition would not be maintainable. An adjournment is declined to have granted - it is concluded that on the face of the prayers as they stand, the petition cannot be entertained - petition dismissed. Issues:1. Abuse of process in a petition under Article 32 seeking various reliefs related to control over Church properties.2. Legality of issuing a mandamus for setting up an independent Tribunal or directing the State to pass a law.3. Maintainability of a petition under Article 32 to challenge a previous judgment of the Supreme Court.Analysis:1. The petition under Article 32 was deemed an abuse of process due to the reliefs sought regarding the control over Church properties. The petition requested the establishment of an independent Tribunal comprising retired High Court judges to determine Church control, execution of Tribunal decisions, passing of a law by the State of Kerala, and protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution.2. The Court clarified that a mandamus cannot be issued for setting up an adjudicatory body or tribunal, as it falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and organization of courts, not within the Supreme Court's purview. Additionally, directing a State legislature to enact a law is beyond the Court's authority. The petition aimed to challenge a previous judgment of the Court, indicating grievance against it, which is not a valid reason for instituting a petition under Article 32.3. The Court concluded that a party aggrieved by a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot seek recourse through a petition under Article 32. The petitioners' dissatisfaction with a previous judgment was not a valid ground for the petition's maintainability. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition, stating it cannot be entertained, and disposed of any pending applications.This judgment highlights the limitations of seeking relief through Article 32, emphasizing the specific scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and the inadmissibility of challenging previous judgments through such petitions.