Advocates:
ABRAHAM, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, C.T.JOSEPH, E.M.S.ANAM, F.S.NARIMAN, JOSE KURIAKOSE, K.GEORGE VARGHESE, K.PARASARAN ATTORNEY, K.V.MOHAN, LILY THOMAS, M.K.D.NAMBUDIRY, M.T.George, P.J.PHILIP, P.V.THOMAS, PRATAP C.MOHAPATRA, R.F.NARIMAN, R.SHOBA, Ranji Thomas, S.BALAKRISHNAN, S.PRASAD RAO, Sudarsh Menon, T.G.NARAYANAN NAIR, T.L.VISHVANATHA IYER, V.P.YOHANUMAN

The legal document primarily addresses complex issues concerning the ecclesiastical authority, jurisdiction, and doctrinal legitimacy of various factions within the Malankara Syrian Christian community. It clarifies that the relationship between the Patriarch of Antioch and the Catholicos of the East is neither of subordination nor of superiority but of two independent spiritual authorities (!) (!) . The document affirms that the 1934 Constitution, which was duly passed and recognized, governs the internal affairs of the Church and its constituent parishes (!) (!) .

It establishes that the authority of the Patriarch is limited to spiritual matters and does not extend to temporal administration, which is managed by the Malankara Association and the local Parish Churches under their respective constitutional provisions (!) (!) . The revival of the Catholicate in 1912 and the subsequent issuance of canonical documents by the Patriarch recognized the authority of the Catholicos, which was accepted by the community and the Patriarch himself, thereby affirming the validity of the Catholicate's powers (!) (!) .

The Court finds that the ex-communication of the Catholicos by the Patriarch was invalid due to procedural irregularities and lack of lawful grounds, especially since the ex-communication was based on charges that were not permissible or relevant (!) (!) . It emphasizes that ecclesiastical decisions, including excommunications, must adhere to canon law and principles of natural justice to be valid (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the document recognizes that the Parish Churches are integral parts of the Malankara Church and are governed by the 1934 Constitution, which ensures their unity and doctrinal consistency while allowing a degree of local autonomy in temporal matters (!) (!) . It concludes that the relationship between the Patriarch and the Catholicos is of mutual recognition and respect, with each exercising authority in their respective spheres, and that the legal disputes are rooted more in personal rivalry and procedural disputes rather than doctrinal or canonical conflicts (!) (!) .

Overall, the Court affirms the constitutional and canonical framework governing the Church, emphasizing the independence of ecclesiastical authority, the validity of the 1934 Constitution, and the importance of procedural correctness in ecclesiastical discipline such as excommunications. It underscores that civil courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving religious offices, property, and doctrinal matters where civil consequences are involved, provided the disputes do not require resolution of doctrinal faith or canonical interpretation (!) (!) .