The High Court observed that a mandamus can't be given by this Court for setting up an adjudicatory body or council.
The court made this remarkable judgment while rejecting the writ filed by John Paily and Ors who looked for a direction to set up an autonomous tribunal involving resigned High Court judges who can investigate the cases of every area Church to figure out which group/division should have command over each such Church. They likewise looked for directions to the said Tribunal to surrender the administration of concerned Church to the section establishing majority, or in the other option, to segment every disputed Church and their properties equitably.
Justice DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that "entry 11A of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution manages, entomb alia, "constitution and association of all courts, except the Supreme Court and the High Courts". Having due respect to the provisions of Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution, no such mandamus can be issued by this Court. Nor can a course be given by this Court to the assembly of a State to authorize a law."
One more prayer in the appeal was to pronounce that no judgment will be permitted to work against the beliefs of Petitioners and individuals from the religious category except if the equivalent isn't ensured by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
Additionally, the court remarked that "the reason for the order, as is confirmed by the prayer (v) extricated above, is to get a direction that no past judgment of this Court regarding the matter raised ought to work. As the solicitors have themselves demonstrated throughout the abstract, the judgment of this Court in K S Varghese versus Saint Peter's and Saint Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church (2017) 15 SCC 333, is the justification initiating the writ order under Article 32 since the applicants believe themselves to be oppressed by the judgment. The remedy of a party that is oppressed by a judgment and order of this Court can't positively lie by establishing an appeal under Article 32 of the Constitution. Such a request would not be maintainable".