Kerala High Court
Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23633 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O VARKEY, MUTHIRENTHY HOUSE,
NEAR CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA,
VADUTHALA, KOCH, PIN - 682023
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
SMT.PUSHPAVATHI.K
SHRI.S.RAJEEV (K/001711/2019)
SMT.SAJANA V.H
SHRI.SHAIJU GEORGE
SMT.SANDRA DAVIS
SMT.BINCY JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2025:KER:54791
W.P.(C) No.23633/2025
:2:
3 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
ERNAKULAM, REVENUE TOWERS, PARK AVENUE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
4 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
COCHIN CITY, REVENUE TOWERS, PARK AVENUE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CENTRAL POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
6 ST. MARY'S CATHEDRAL BASILICA
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATOR, FR. THARIYAN NJALIYATH,
PIN - 682031
7 JOEL W. MENACHERRY
S/O VAREED, MENACHERRY HOUSE, OLD RAILWAY
STATION ROAD, KOCHI, PRESENTLY OFFICIATING AS
THE TRUSTEE, ST. MARY'S CATHEDRAL BASILICA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
8 SIBI TOM
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
REVENUE TOWERS, PARK AVENUE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
9 FR. VARGHESE MANAVALAN
FORMER ADMINISTRATOR ST. MARY BASILICA
CATHEDRAL, BROADWAY ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON 25.07.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54791
W.P.(C) No.23633/2025
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.23633 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is a lawyer and is a member of the Syro Malabar Church. The petitioner belongs to St. Mary's Cathedral Basilica Parish, Ernakulam. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the harassment meted out to him by the police administration.
2. The issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is a consequence of disputes between two factions of the Church with regard to rituals and customs and the manner in which Qurbana is to be conducted by Priests in Churches. The petitioner states that the 8th respondent- Assistant Commissioner of Police gave oral directions to the 2025:KER:54791 W.P.(C) No.23633/2025 :4: police personnel to ensure that the 6 th respondent-Church remains closed. Such a direction is in contravention of the orders of the civil court, contends the petitioner.
3. The Trustees of the Church are not permitted to enter inside. The 9th respondent, who has been ousted by the ecclesiastical authorities, along with his henchmen is freely using the Church premises with the active protection of the police. The private security is committing pilferage. Valuable materials and files are taken away from the Church premises to undisclosed destinations. Original documents, including title deeds and revenue records in respect of the Church property, are taken away from the Church illegally.
4. On 23.06.2025, the petitioner and other Trustees were summoned orally by the 8th respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Police, without any authority of law. The 8 th respondent at around 5.30 pm threatened the petitioner and others and stated that any protest by them will be met with iron hands. The 8th respondent stated that the 9 th 2025:KER:54791 W.P.(C) No.23633/2025 :5: respondent is an aged person and he must be permitted to avail the services of a personal cook and home nurse.
5. The Trustees objected to the suggestion and stated that the 9th respondent can avail all such facilities at the Priest Home at Thrikkakkara. The 9 th respondent cannot reside in the premises after Exts.P1 to P3 orders are passed by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
6. The petitioner states that any action by the 8 th respondent in this regard is "State Excess". The petitioner is fearful of any action by the 8th respondent, which may affect civil rights and fundamental rights of the petitioner.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5.
8. The issue arises out of the factional feud in the Syro Malabar Church as a result of the decision taken by the Church authorities in the matter of mode of performing Qurbana. The 9th respondent was the Administrator of the 2025:KER:54791 W.P.(C) No.23633/2025 :6: St.Mary's Cathedral Basilica Parish Church. The petitioner submits that the 9th respondent was relieved of his charges and was directed to shift to the Priest Home, as per Ext.P1 decree passed by the Major Archeparchy of Ernakulam- Angamaly.
9. On 23.06.2025, the petitioner, the Trustees and other prominent members of the Church were orally requisitioned by the 8th respondent to his office. The petitioner would submit that they were harassed and threatened by the 8th respondent and cautioned not to carry out any protest. The 8th respondent stated that the 9 th respondent will be permitted to avail the services of a personal cook and a Home Nurse and for that purpose he will be granted protection. The petitioner submits that the 8 th respondent has no such authority as the competent authorities under the Church have directed the 9th respondent to shift his residence to the Priest Home.
2025:KER:54791 W.P.(C) No.23633/2025 :7:
10. Taking into consideration the issues involved in the dispute and the law and order situation and taking into consideration the age of the 9 th respondent, it may be competent for the 8th respondent to provide security to the 9th respondent for engaging personal Cook and Home Nurse as a stop gap arrangement. Those disputes are best left to the civil courts to decide finally.
11. At any rate, the police officers cannot harass the petitioner and threaten him in this regard. The petitioner being a follower of the Church, he has a right to get involved in the matter, express his views and resort to peaceful protest, abiding the provisions of the law. As long as the petitioner is conducting himself within the provisions of law, the police cannot restrain the petitioner from exercising his lawful rights.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing respondents 4 and 5 not to harass the petitioner in any manner by summoning him to the Police Station 2025:KER:54791 W.P.(C) No.23633/2025 :8: unnecessarily. It is made clear that this judgment will not prevent the police from taking action if criminal acts are detected or reported or to maintain law and order.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/23.07.2025 2025:KER:54791 W.P.(C) No.23633/2025 :9: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23633/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON THE 9TH RESPONDENT AS PER THE CANNON LAW BEARING PROT. NO.
C29P/PC/74 DATED 21.12.2024 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE BEARING NO. EKM/PRO/2024/08 DATED 28.12.2024 Exhibit P3 A TRUE OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER OF THE MAJOR ARCHEPARCHY OF ERNAKULAM ANGAMALY Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.03.2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 46355 OF 2024 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 08.04.2025 IN WPC 14784 OF 2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE OF INTERLOCUTORY SENTENCE BEARING PROT NO. ST-C1-8 DATED 02.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE ARCHEPARCHY OF ERNAKULAM ANGAMALY