Summary
The Court’s consolidated conclusions required Malankara parish churches to be administered under the 1934 Constitution and the binding earlier representative judgments. Parish majorities could not substitute a rival constitution or appropriate church trust property. This headnote is limited to those conclusions and the final procedural and remedial rulings.
Issues
- Whether parish churches could adopt parallel governance inconsistent with the 1934 Constitution and earlier binding decisions.
- Whether a new scheme, fresh representative leave or dual-vicar arrangement was required.
Held
- The 1934 Constitution governed parish affairs, and the 1995 representative judgment bound all interested persons on matters decided, not merely the named parties. The rival 2002 governance arrangement could not displace it. (¶¶ 184(i)–(iv), 184(xx)–(xxiv))
- Members could individually leave, but a parish majority could not take the church or its trust property outside the governing framework. Management and appointments must follow the allocation of powers in the 1934 Constitution; spiritual allegiance did not authorize parallel administration. (¶¶ 184(v)–(xvi), 184(xix)–(xx))
- The Court preserved parishioners’ customary use and honourable burial rights where they continued in the Malankara faith, while rejecting ownership or confiscation claims by competing majorities. (¶ 184(xvii))
- The Mannathur suit remained representative after the relevant amendment without fresh leave. No Section 92 scheme was necessary given the existing constitution, and the requested two-vicar arrangement was rejected as parallel administration. (¶¶ 180–184, 184(xxv)–(xxviii))
Result
Appeals dismissed; parties to bear their own costs. Administration under the 1934 Constitution maintained, with lawful constitutional amendment identified as the route for agreed governance changes.