1934 -ലെ സഭാ ഭരണഘടനയുടെ കയ്യെഴുത്തുപ്രതി വ്യാജമായി ചമച്ചുണ്ടാക്കിയത്

ബഹു സുപ്രീം കോടതി 1995 -ലെ ഉത്തരവില്‍ ഇപ്രകാരം പറയുന്നു
“ Para 102 the draft constitution prepared by the Managing Committee of the Malankara Association was published in the shape of a pamphlet. On December 3, 1934 notices were issued convening a meeting of all the Churches to be held on December 26, 1934 at M.D. Seminary at Kottayam for, inter alia, electing the Malankara Metropolitan and adopting the draft constitution. Notices were also published in two leading Malayalam newspapers. The meeting was held on the appointed day (the proceedings whereof were exhibited as Ex.64 in Samudayam suit), at which, the third Catholicos, Mar Basselios Geevarghese II was elected as Malankara Metropolitan. The draft constitution was also adopted at the said meeting.

1958 ബഹു സുപ്രീം കോടതിയില്‍ ഹോജരാക്കിയ 1934 ഭരണഘടന ഒറിജിനല്‍ പാംലെറ്റ്‌ (കൈപുസ്തകം) ആയിരുന്നു. ഇപ്പോള്‍ എങ്ങനെ ഒരു കൈയെഴുത്തുപ്രതി ഉണ്ടായി. ഈ കൈയെഴുത്തുപ്രതി വ്യാജം തന്നെ. ഇത് വ്യാജം ആയി ഉണ്ടാക്കിയവർക്ക്‌ എതിരെ അന്വേഷണം നടത്തി ക്രിമിനൽ കേസ് എടുക്കണം.

Para 104 The constitution was amended in 1951 and again in 1967. When the 1951 amendments were made, the judgment of the Travancore High Court dated August 8, 1946 was holding the field where under the Catholicos group were declared as strangers to the Malankara Church. For that reason, it appears, none of the members of the Patriarch group participated in effecting the said amendments.
1951-ലും 1967-ലും ഈ ഭരണഘടന ഭേദഗതി വരുത്തി എന്ന് കോടതി പറയുന്നു.

Para 142 (decree portion ) (6) Ex.A.19, Kalpana, was issued by Patriarch Yakub with the full knowledge of revival of Catholicate, Ex.A.14 and the 1934 Constitution and the various claims and contentions of both the parties put forward in Samudayam suit and the decision of this Court in A.I.R.1959 S.C.31. It must, therefore, be held that the Patriarch has thereby accepted the validity of the revival of Catholicate Ex.A.14 and the 1934 Constitution, and abandoned and gave up all or any objections they had in that behalf. Several members of his group including some of the defendants also accepted the Constitution and took oath to abide by it. They cannot now turn round and question the same.
ആയതിന്നാല്‍ 1995 വിധി പ്രകാരം യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിന് 1934 ഭരണഘടന അംഗീകരിച്ചതിനു ശേഷം ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യാവുന്നതല്ല.

1934 -ലെ സഭാ ഭരണഘടനയും അതിലെ എല്ലാ ഭേദഗതിയും യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗം ബഹു. കോടതികളില്‍ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്തിരുന്നു.

1958 സുപ്രീം കോടതിയില്‍ തര്‍ക്ക വിഷയം:- Patriarch/Jacobite Faction relied on a cause of action founded on new set of allegations namely (i) adopting a new constitution to take away the supremacy of Patriarch, (ii) by inserting Clause 5 in Ex. A.M (1934 ഭരണഘടന) Constitution the Defendants have repudiated the true Canon and have thereby gone out of the Church.
ഈ തര്‍ക്കം കോടതി വിശദമായി പരിശോദിച്ചു ഓർത്തഡോക്സ്‌ സഭയ്ക്ക് അനുകൂലമായി വിധിച്ചു.

1951, 1967 -ലെ ഭരണഘടന ഭേതഗതികള്‍ എല്ലാം ബഹു കേരള ഹൈക്കോടതി സിംഗിള്‍ ബെഞ്ചും പിന്നീടു ഡിവിഷന്‍ ബെഞ്ചും പരിശോധിച്ചു. (Pls Refer to paragraphs 240 to 251 – page Nos.167 to 170 of the judgment dtd. 06.06.1980 in O.S.Nos.1-8/1979 delivered by Hon’ble Justice T. Chandrasekhara Menon).

ഡിവിഷന്‍ ബെഞ്ചു വിധി ഇപ്രകാരം തീര്‍പ്പാക്കിയിട്ടുള്ളതാണ്.

• (Para 59) “It is therefore not open to any parish or any segment of the malankara community to contend that the 1934 constitution was not validly or lawfully adopted.
• (Para 78 clearly says) “ We are unable to agree that any of the provision of the constitution as it originally stood or as amended is illegal or void”
• (Para 81 says) “we have already indicated that the constitution has come into existence as a product of the will of the gathering of
  the representative of the parish churches and as such is valid and binding on all the parish churches. The question of rectification by any parish church does not arise.”
• (Para 83 says) “ thus the challenge against the constitution fails. We hold that the constitution of the Malankara Sabha as amended is binding on the entire Malankara Syrian Christian church and Community including all the diocese, parishes and parishioners”.
• (Para 88 says) “The development subsequent to the decision of the supreme court …. Erstwhile patriarch group accepted constitution them in force and that could only be 1934 constitution as amended in 1951. … 1967 amendments were formulated by the rule committee and approved by the managing committee as required by the provision of the constitution. ……… there is no case that association or Episcopal synod had altered the amendments. Therefore the 1967 amendments also have stand.”
• (Para 88 says) “The development subsequent to the decision of the supreme court …. Erstwhile patriarch group accepted constitution them in force and that could only be 1934 constitution as amended in 1951. … 1967 amendments were formulated by the rule committee and approved by the managing committee as required by the provision of the constitution. ……… there is no case that association or Episcopal synod had altered the amendments. Therefore the 1967 amendments also have stand.”

മലങ്കര സഭാ ന്യൂസ്  Android Application →  OVS Online ഇല്‍ നിന്നുമുള്ള വാര്‍ത്തകളും ലേഖനങ്ങളും നിങ്ങളുടെ മൊബൈലില്‍ ഉടന്‍ തന്നെ ലഭ്യമാകുവാന്‍ ഞങ്ങളുടെ Android Application ഇന്‍സ്റ്റോള്‍ ചെയ്തോളൂ

1995 സുപ്രീം കോടതി വിധി

Para 76. 3. The following findings in Moran Mar Baselios (supra) have become final and operate as resjudicata:- (b) The constitution framed in 1934 by malankara Association is valid.

Para 104 The constitution was amended in 1951 and again in 1967. When the 1951 amendments were made, the judgment of the Travancore High Court dated August 8, 1946 was holding the field where under the Catholicos group were declared as strangers to the Malankara Church. For that reason, it appears, none of the members of the Patriarch group participated in effecting the said amendments.

യാക്കോബായ ആവശ്യപ്രകാരം 1934 ഭരണഘടന ബഹു സുപ്രീം കോടതി ഭേതഗതി വരൂത്തുന്നു.
Para 145. (last portion) The learned counsel for the appellants contended that with a view to retain control over the Malankara Association, the Catholicos group have created a large number of Parish Churches though among the individual members of the Church, the majority swears allegiance to Patriarch. His contention is that because in the Malankara Association each Parish Church, whether big or small, is entitled to have three delegates, the Association is not a true representation of the will of the members of the Church as such. He suggests that while some Churches have a large body of believers running into several thousands, there are Churches having as little as fifty members and yet each of them has equal representative in the Malankara Association. On this account, the learned counsel says, the proceedings of the Malankara Association cannot be said to be reflecting the will of the majority of the Malankara Christians truly. It cannot be said that there is no substance in this submission. If the Malankara Association is to be vested with the control over the religious and communal affairs of the entire Malankara Christian community, it must truly and genuinely reflect the will of the said community. For ensuring it, its composition must be so structured as to represent the entire spectrum of the community. A powerful body having control over both spiritual and communal in a reasonable and fair manner. Judged from this angle, clause (68) of the 1934 Constitution cannot be said to be a fair one. [After 1967 amendment, the corresponding clause is Clause (71) which reads, “a priest and two laymen elected by each Parish Assembly (and the members of the existing Managing Committee?) shall be members of the Association”]. It may, therefore, be necessary to substitute Clause (68) (now Clause (71) and other relevant clauses of the Constitution to achieve the aforesaid objective which would also affirm the democratic principle, which appears to be one of the basic tenets of this Church. Accordingly, we direct both the parties as well as the Rule Committee (mentioned in clause (120) of the Constitution) to place before this Court within three months from today draft amendments to the Constitution. After perusing the same, we shall give appropriate directions. Thereafter, elections to the Malankara Association shall be held on the basis of the amended Constitution. The Association so elected shall be the Association for all purposes within the meaning of and for the purposes of the 1934 Constitution (as amended from time to time).
കോടതി നിർദ്ദേശിച്ച ഭേതഗതിയുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ 2002 -ല്‍ അസോസിയേഷൻ നടത്തി. ആ അസോസിയേഷൻ തീരുമാനം ഇന്ത്യയിലെ ഒരു കോടതിയും ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യരുത് എന്ന് ഉത്തരവും ഇട്ടു.

2017 ജൂലൈ 3 സുപ്രീം കോടതി വിധി

• Para 54. Shri. C.S. Vidyanathan ….. “Constitution of 1934 has been amended more than once in 1951, 1967, 1997, 2006 and 2011. It is not a Bible. This Court also ordered the amendment of the 1934 constitution in the judgment of 1995.
• Para 58. Shri. Philip John … “He has questioned the amendment made in section 7,8, and 43 of the 1934 Constitution and in the year 2011.
• Para 79 last Thus the issues which have been decided in the suit, cannot be reopened, including the question of adoption of the 1934 Constitution, its validity and binding nature. The applicability and legality of 1934 Constitution was questioned in the Samudayam suit. A ground was raised that by formation of the 1934 Constitution, supremacy of the Patriarch has been taken away. This Court in 1995 judgment construed Samudayam judgment and there is no scope to differ with the same.

2018 പിറവം പള്ളിയുടെ സുപ്രീം കോടതി വിധി
As the controversy in question has been finally decided in the case of K.S.Verghese vs. St. Peter’s & Paul’s Syrian Orth. & Ors. in C.A.No.3674 of 2015 etc. decided on 3rd July, 2017 [2017 (15) SCC 333], in which it has been laid down that 1934 Constitution holds the field, nothing further survives in the matters for adjudication. Consequently, the appeals stand disposed of in terms of the
above judgment.

2018 കട്ടചിറ സുപ്രീം കോടതി 3 അംഗ ബഞ്ചിന്റെ വിധി
Para 11. It was held that 1934 Constitution is applicable to Malankara Church and its parish Churches and organisations recognising that the Malankara has control over both spiritual and communal affairs of the Malankara Church. It was held that the Patriarch group cannot question the legality and validity of the 1934 Constitution.

ജില്ലാ കോടതി മുതൽ സുപ്രീം കോടതിവരെ മൂന്ന് തവണ അംഗീകരിച്ച ഭരണഘടനാ മറ്റേതു സഭയ്ക്കുണ്ട്? ഇത്ര കണ്ടു വിചാരണ നേരിട്ടിട്ടും ഒരു പോറൽ പോലും തട്ടാത്ത ഈ പവിത്രമായ ഭരണസംവിധാനം ആണ് മലങ്കര ഓർത്തഡോക്സ്‌ സഭയുടെ 34 ഭരണഘടന. കണ്ണുള്ളവൻ കാണട്ടെ.

https://ovsonline.in/articles/malankara-church-dispute-3/