Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20596 Ker
Judgement Date : 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Tuesday, the 5th day of October 2021 / 13th Aswina, 1943
WP(C) NO. 27219 OF 2019(B)
PETITIONERS:
1. ST MARYS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH POOTHRIKKA KARA,AIKKARANADU SOUTH
VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,REP.BY ITS VICAR,FR.ABY ULAHANNAN.
2. FR.ABY ULAHANNAN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O ULAHANNAN,PARACHALIL
HOUSE,THATTAKUZHA.P.O,THODUPUZHA, VICAR,ST.MARY'S SYRIAN ORTHODOX
CHURCH,POTHIRKKA KARA.
3. JOSSY P.JACOB, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.K.J.CHACKO,CHETTIKUZHIYIL
HOUSE,(KAVANAMOLAYIL),POOTHRIKKA KARA, AIKKARANADU SOUTH
VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.
4. JOHN KURIAKOSE, AGED 64 YEARS THOZHUTHUNKAL HOUSE,POOTHRIKKA KARA,
AIKKARNADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD-682030.
3. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD
QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL,ALUVA-683101.
5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.
6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUTHENCRUZ POLICE
STATION,PUTHENCRUZ-682308.
7. P.M.POULOSE, AGED 60 YEARS S/O MARKOSE,PULICHOTTIL
HOUSE,POOTHRIKKA,AIKKANARADU SOUTH VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU
TALUK,PIN-686662.
8. BIJU.M.PAUL, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.POULOSE,MULLAKKAL HOUSE,
POOTHRIKKA.P.O,PIN-682308.
9. JOHNY VARGHESE, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE,MANDENKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
POOTHRIKKA.P.O,PIN-682308.
10. PHILIP, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.KURIYAKOSE,THOZHUTHUNKAL,
POOTHRIKKA.P.O,PIN-682308.
11. BENNY, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.KURIAN,KUPPLASSERI HOUSE,
POOTHRIKKA.P.O,PIN-682308.
12. FR.BINU YOHANNAN, CHUNDAKATTUMALAYIL HOUSE,KUNNAKKAL.P.O,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT,PIN-682001.
Writ Petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to direct respondents 2 to 6 to afford adequate and effective
Police Protection to the 2nd petitioner to conduct religious sacraments
and other functions in the 1st petitioner-church, its chapels, its cemetery
and appurtenant buildings and petitioners 3 and 4 and other parishioners
st
of the 1 petitioner-church in participating in such religious services
without any let, hindrance or obstruction from respondents 7 to 12, their
men, agents or followers or anybody claiming under them, ensuring that no
priest or prelate appointed otherwise than in accordance with Malankara
Church Constitution of 1934 conduct any sacraments therein, pending final
disposal of the above Writ Petition.
This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the petition
and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this Court order's dated
21-12-2020 upon hearing the arguments of SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SENIOR
ADVOCATE), along with M/S.P.MARTIN JOSE, P.PRIJITH, R.GITHESH, HANI P.NAIR
& THOMAS P.KURUVILLA, Advocates for the petitioner, SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE
ATTORNEY for R1 to R6, SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) along with
SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, Advocate for R7, SREEKUMAR CHELUR, Advocate for R8
to R12, and of ADV.HARIKUMAR G.NAIR as AMICUS CURIAE, the court passed the
following:
P.T.O
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
========================= ==========
W.P.(C)Nos.27219, 25645, 27081, 30976, 34049 of
2019, 8308, 18091, 13556 of 2020 & 1409 of 2021
====================================
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2021
ORDER
When these matters were considered today,
the learned Senior Counsel - Sri.K.Ramakumar,
Sri.P.Viswanathan, along with Sri.K.P.Sreekumar,
Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, Sri.Alias M.Cherian,
Sri.Sabu Thozhuppadan, Sri.Sreekumar(Chelur),
Sri.P.Thomas Geevarghese and Sri.Nandagopal
Nambiar appearing for various respondents, did
not contest that, after the Hon'ble Supreme
Court delivered K.S.Varghese v. St.Peter's and
St.Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church [2017 (15)
SCC], the various constituents Churches of the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church can only be
governed by the 1934 Constitution. They
unequivocally conceded that only the Clergy
appointed under the said Constitution can lead
services in the Churches; and that only the
Vicar thereunder can head the Management of the
individual Churches.
W.P.(C)No.27219/19 & Con.Cases
2. However, the apprehension of the
respondents were that even when they abide
K.S.Varghese (supra) implicitly, the petitioners
and persons owing allegiance to them are anxious
only to grab the Church and oust anyone who is not
of their choice.
3. I, therefore, asked Sri.S.Sreekumar,
learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.P.Martin
Jose - learned counsel; Sri.Roshen D.Alexander -
and Sri.Philip Mathews - learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in these matters, whether any
of their clients have the intention of keeping
away any Parishioner from the Management of the
Churches, to which, their reply was strongly to
the negative; adding that their clients are also
equally, if not more obliged, by the terms of the
1934 Constitution.
4. Sri.Mathews Nedumpara and
Sri.S.K.Premraj Menon - learned counsel appearing
for some individuals seeking to be impleaded in
these cases, however, had a different take that W.P.(C)No.27219/19 & Con.Cases
K.S.Varghese (supra) does not lay down the right
law, and that it is only the constitutional
judgment of the Supreme Court in the 'Samudayam
Suit' that can obtain any primacy. In fact,
Sri.Mathews Nedumpara went on to the extent of
saying that none of the Supreme Court judgments
relating to the Malankara Church can be treated as
laying the correct law or to be given the respect
of being precedents, and that the declarations
therein cannot operate as res judicata or as
binding precedents, under the concepts of stare
decisis.
5. In other words, what Sri.Mathews
Nedumpara seems to say, in my assessment of the
long winding arguments he made, was that
notwithstanding K.S.Varhese (supra), individual
Parishioners can still maintain suits with respect
to the internal Management of Churches, as also
with respect to ecclesiastical and temporal
aspects.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General - W.P.(C)No.27219/19 & Con.Cases
Sri.Asok M.Cherian, submitted that the State
affirms by K.S.Varghese (supra) and takes the view
that only the Vicar and Clergy appointed under the
1934 Constitution can be allowed to lead services
and Manage the Churches. He submitted that,
however, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic
scenario and its consequent disruptions, Police
are not in a position to afford effective
protection to all the Churches at a given time;
and, therefore, prayed that this Court grant the
State enough space to work on the modus of
implementing K.S.Varghese (supra), on a step to
step basis.
7. I must record upfront that no Court - and
most of all this Court - will find any pleasure in
sending Police or other forces into any Church for
implementation of a judgment. However, if this
Court is pushed to it, certainly that option will
have to be explored and necessary force may have
to be ordered.
8. As matters now stand, I am of the firm W.P.(C)No.27219/19 & Con.Cases
view that the persons who were earlier calling
themselves "two factions" will now have to
understand that the litigative travel with respect
to the Malankara Church has now ended with
K.S.Varghese (supra), since the Review attempted
against it has also be dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
9. Perspicuously, therefore, this Court
cannot recognize fractions within the Malankara
Church; nor can this Court countenance any action
from any person in violation of its 1934
Constitution.
10. Apodictically thus, the Vicar appointed
under the 1934 Constitution will have to be the
head of the Management of each of the constituent
Churches, and that the Clergy appointed under the
said constitution will have to lead its services.
11. It is also without need to say that every
parish member - whether he belonged to one of the
now extinguished factions in the past - will
obtain the unbridled right to take part in the W.P.(C)No.27219/19 & Con.Cases
activities of the Church, inclu1ding its
Management, by either offering as candidate in the
elections or as a voter, as long as he abides by
the 1934 Constitution, as has been declared by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, through the process
established.
12. Viewed from the afore perspective, one
would certainly fail to understand how the rift
between these two sections of people are still
continuing and how they call themselves "two
factions", even at this point of time.
13. Mercifully, the deliberations at the Bar
gives me a glimpse of hope because both sides
agree that the 1934 Constitution applies in its
full force and that all the Parishioners are bound
to abide by the same.
14. However, it cannot be lost sight of that
the erstwhile 'factions' were led by their own
wise men and Heads of ecclesiastical and temporal
matters. Certainly, these persons will require to
now analyze the situation unfolding in front of W.P.(C)No.27219/19 & Con.Cases
them and decide how the long standing bitterness
between these two sections of people can be
resolved.
15. This is not a mere hortative hope
expressed by this Court, but it is the imperative
need, on account of K.S.Varghese (Supra), because
from the time of the said judgment, factionalism
in the Malankara Church cannot be in any manner
countenance or condoned.
16. The various Senior Counsel and the
counsel appearing for the parties today inform me
that steps have already begun between the persons
at the helm of affairs of the erstwhile "factions"
to find peace and to put a quietus to the ongoing
issues between them.
17. In fact, some of the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents inform me that a
meeting of the persons who matter with respect to
an earlier faction - which was called "Jacobite
Faction" - has already called on 15.10.2021 and
that they are trying to find out means as to how W.P.(C)No.27219/19 & Con.Cases
the 1934 Constitution can be implemented, without
any further bitterness or strife.
18. I certainly appreciate this effort
because, as I had earlier suggested when this
matter was considered by me, the continuance of
the 'dispute' can only help vested interests and
not the real devotees on either side.
19. If this Court is to send forces for
the purpose of implementation of K.S.Varghese
(Supra), certainly chances of untoward incidents
cannot be discounted and this is confirmed by the
learned Additional Advocate General, Shri.Ashok
M.Cheriyan.
20. As I have also said above, it is not
this Court's first option to do that, but the last
one; which will become inevitable if the both
sides do not agree, using their good conscience
and reasoned mind, to understand that K.S.Varghese
(Supra) has now put an end to the litigation,
based on the rival factionalism which existed in
the past.
W.P.(C)No.27219/19 & Con.Cases
21. I, therefore, adjourn these matters
to be called on 26.10.2021; with a fervent call to
all the people who matter on both sides, to abide
by K.S.Varghese (Supra) and by the 1934
Constitution and permit the churches to function
as abodes of God, rather than places of war, to
which some of them have been now virtually reduced
to.
22. I, however, deem it necessary to
caution both sides that if the recalcitrance and
belligerence to abide by K.S.Varghese (Supra)
continues, this Court will not shy away from
enforcing its constitutional obligations of even
using the Police force to ensure that the 1934
Constitution is properly implemented in the
various constituent Churches of the Malankara
Syrian Orthodox Churches.
Needless to say, until 26.10.2021, the
Superintendents of Police and the Officers under
their command, will ensure that the areas where
the constituent churches are situated are W.P.(C)No.27219/19 & Con.Cases
protected from any violation of law and order by
any person and that no attempt to breach peace or
commit violence is tolerated or permitted from any
person on either side of the divide; and that the
properties and assets of the Churches are
sufficiently protected.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE H/o akv/MC
05-10-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!