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
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
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
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
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
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
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
