Kerala High Court
Gilbert Cheeran vs State Of Kerala on 21 March, 2025
W.P.(PIL).No.1 of 2025 -:1:-
2025:KER:24144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(PIL) NO. 1 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
GILBERT CHEERAN, AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O. C. M. GEORGE, CHEERAN HOUSE,
PAZHANJI KARA, PAZHANJI P.O.,
KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680542.
BY ADV. SRI. YESHWANTH SHENOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
3 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
ROOM NO. 74 B, GATE NO. 04,
SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011.
W.P.(PIL).No.1 of 2025 -:2:-
2025:KER:24144
4 JOSEPH MAR GREGORIUS, AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. GEEVARGHESE,
BISHOP'S HOUSE, KYOMTHA SEMINARY,
THIRUVAMKULAM, TRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301.
BY ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,
BY SRI. ASOK M. CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
SRI. T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
SRI. V. MANU, SPL.G.P. TO A.G.
THIS WRIT PETITION (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) HAVING
COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON 21.03.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(PIL).No.1 of 2025 -:3:-
2025:KER:24144
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2025.
Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
The Petitioner, an advocate, and belonging to Malankara
Orthodox Syrian Church, has filed this Public Interest Litigation being
aggrieved by the decision of the State of Kerala to send a delegation to
attend the consecration ceremony for Jacobite Syrian Christian Bishop
Mor Gregorios Joseph, scheduled to be held on 25 March 2025 at
Lebanon. The Petitioner seeks to quash Exhibit-P1 order dated 11
March 2025, issued by the Additional Secretary, General
Administration (Protocol) Department, Government of Kerala, granting
approval, on the ground that it is issued in breach of the orders of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Petitioner has also sought declarations
regarding the lack of authority of the Patriarch in Lebanon to conduct
the ceremony.
2. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Kerala, through the Chief
Secretary. Respondent No. 2 is the Secretary, Home Department, who is
in charge of law and order. Respondent No. 3 is the Union of India,
through the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs. Respondent No. 4 is
the person, who is to be ordained in the consecration ceremony on 25
March 2025.
3. To provide a brief factual backdrop to the Malankara Orthodox
and Jacobite legal dispute, the representative of Parish Churches in
2025:KER:24144
Kerala adopted a constitution for the Malankara Church on 26
December 1934. A detailed decision on the subject came to be rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017, where the 1934 constitution
was reiterated and confirmed. This decision was followed by the
subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. Contempt petitions and
petitions for police protection were filed in this Court, and later orders
passed in these proceedings were the subject matter of challenge before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By order of 30 January 2025, the Supreme
Court called upon this Court to examine the issues that have been
framed in the judgment and the Division Bench is currently hearing this
group of petitions.
4. We have heard Mr. Yeshwanth Shenoy, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, and Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Advocate General
for the Respondent - State.
5. The Petitioner contends that the Patriarch, who will conduct the
consecration ceremony scheduled to be held on 25 March 2025 to
ordain Respondent No. 4, does not have the power to appoint Vicars,
Priest, etc., in violation of the 1934 constitution of the Malankara
Church, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
K.S.Varghese and Others v. St. Peters and St. Pauls Syrian Orthodox
Church and Others1 and all the decisions referred to in K.S.Varghese, as
reiterated thereafter by the Supreme Court. He has relied upon the
1 (2017) 15 SCC 333
2025:KER:24144
decisions in the cases of K.S.Varghese v. St. Peters and Pauls Syrian
Orthodox Church and Others2, Mathews Mar Koorilos v. M. Pappy3,
Fr. Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa v. St. Marys Orthodox Syrian
Church and Others4, St. Marys Orthodox Church and Others v. State
Police Chief and Others5, K.P. John and Another v. John Puthiyakunnel
and Others6, K.S. Varghese v. St. Peters and Pauls Syrian Orthodox
Church and Others7, Fr. Thomas Paul Ramban v. S. Suhas, District
Collector8, and V.P. Markose & Others v. Rev. Fr. Tijo Kuriakose9.
6. The learned Advocate General submitted that the Writ Petition is
without merit and should not be entertained as a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) as the Petitioner is directly an interested party, a
member of the Malankara Church. It is submitted that the declaration
sought by the Petitioner regarding the authority of Respondent No.4 is
a matter of dispute on merits between the parties who are not even
joined in the Petition, and such a declaration cannot be given in a PIL.
He submitted that various facets and intricacies have to be decided by
the civil court or by this Court in substantive proceedings between the
rival parties. It is submitted that pursuant to the order of the Supreme
2 (2017) 15 SCC 333
3 (2018) 9 SCC 672
4 (2019) 10 SCC 606
5 (2020) 18 SCC 329
6 Order dated 19 April 2015 in C.A. No.3986-3989 of 2018.
7 Order dated 19 June 2020 in M.A. No.1095 - 1097 of 2020.
8 Contempt Case (Civil) No.2615/2019.
2025:KER:24144
Court in Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.
26064 - 26069/2024 dated 30 January 2025 [V. Venu & Ors. v. St.
Marys Orthodox Church (Odakkali Palli) & Ors.], the Division Bench
of this Court is now considering the matters on merits and any
observation on the reliefs sought for by the Petitioner would affect the
contentions of the parties in those proceedings. The learned Advocate
General submitted that following the decision in the case of
K.S.Varghese, the subsequent orders passed by the Supreme Court,
culminating in the final order dated 30 January 2025, have changed the
complexion of the dispute.
7. As stated earlier, a constitution for the Malankara Church was
adopted on 26 December 1934. The legality and validity of the 1934
constitution was challenged, and by judgment and order dated 12
September 1958, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the constitution to
be valid and binding. Thereafter, there were further rounds of litigation.
A committee was also appointed. A detailed decision on the subject
came to be rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Varghese.
The decision in the case of K.S.Varghese was thereafter reiterated in the
cases of Mathews Mar Koorilos, Fr. Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa, and
St. Marys Orthodox Church. Meanwhile, proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were also initiated in this Court. In one
contempt case, the learned Single Judge, making certain observations
against the State Government, directed the Central Reserve Police Force
2025:KER:24144
(CRPF) to take over the concerned church premises by order dated 8
December 2020. This order was the subject matter of an appeal. The
appeal was admitted by order dated 7 January 2021 and all proceedings
pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge were stayed.
The learned Single Judge of this Court also passed orders in a writ
petition seeking police protection in respect of enforcement of the
orders of the Court. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal,
made certain observations regarding the law and order situation and also
that the rule of law has to be maintained and the orders of the Court
have to be complied with.
8. The proceedings from the orders passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in appeal, as well as the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge in various contempt petitions, and the order passed in the
proceedings for police protection were the subject matter of challenge
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a group of appeals. In the group of
appeals, on 25 November 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an
interim order, whereby the State Authorities were asked to submit a
proposal along with the modalities giving effect to the directions issued
by the Court. Thereafter, a detailed interim order was passed on 3
December 2024. Then, further orders were passed on 17 December
2024 and thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the
appeals. The relevant observations are as follows:
2025:KER:24144
"12. It seems to us that the High Court, while entertaining
the contempt proceedings and before issuing the
directions which can have far reaching consequences,
ought to have determined some of the most relevant issues
such as: (i) what is the true import of the principles laid
down or issues determined by this Court in the cited
decisions; (ii) who are the parties that shall be bound by
the dictum of this Court in the cited decisions;(iii)
whether the decree, which attained finality, has been
satisfied/fulfilled; (iv) If not, which part of the decree
remains unfulfilled and what remedial action in that
regard are required to be taken; (v) what is the legal effect
of the Kerala Right to Burial of Corpse in Christian
(Malankara Orthodox-Jacobite) Cemeteries Act, 2020;
(vi) what is the legal impact of 2020 Act on the contempt
proceedings; and (vii) should a High Court in a dispute
relating to religious affairs direct the Civil Administration
to take over physical possession of the religious places, and
if so, to what extent such like intervention would be
necessitated in public interest?
13. Since we find that all these questions would require a
fresh consideration by the High Court, we deem it
appropriate to set aside the impugned order(s) dated
17.10.2024 and remit the matters to the Division Bench
of the Kerala High Court to decide the controversy afresh
after hearing all the parties concerned."
***
Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court is now considering the
group of appeals on merits, on the above-mentioned points. As
indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in view of these legal
proceedings between the rival factions, we do not deem it appropriate to
2025:KER:24144
consider the prayer for a declaration regarding the power of Respondent
No.4 in this PIL as it is a matter of merits of the disputes between these
rival factions. Under the guise of seeking to restrain a delegation, an
attempt to initiate parallel proceedings to obtain some observations on
merits cannot be permitted.
9. Therefore, the main issue that arises for consideration is the
validity of the order passed by the State Government approving the
delegation to be sent to Lebanon to attend the consecration ceremony of
Respondent No.4.
10. According to the Petitioner, the delegation should not be
permitted as it would be a contempt of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in K.S.Varghese which is binding. The Petitioner has
relied upon paragraphs 130, 145, and 146 of the judgment in
K.S.Varghese, and the paragraph 184, where the findings on the main
conclusions were summarized where the Supreme Court reiterated that
the 1934 constitution is valid and that there should not be any attempt
to establish a parallel administration. According to the Petitioner, there
is a clear declaration that the Patriarch has no rights over the subject
matter, and there should not be any illegal interference in the
management and assumption of the properties, and therefore, there
should not be any State delegation at the State's expense. Relying on the
observations of the Supreme Court and the orders passed by this Court,
the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that actions of the State of
2025:KER:24144
Kerala are always in defiance of the orders of the Supreme Court, and
the State has a bounden duty to ensure that the rule of law is maintained
and should not take actions while representing the State in foreign soil,
which will be in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court. The
Petitioner contends that the orders passed by the Single Judge and the
Division Bench of this Court while granting police protection and in
contempt petitions, have noted that the conduct of the State
Government in siding with the Jacobite faction contrary to the orders of
the Supreme Court and, in fact, directed that the Central agencies
should intervene. According to the Petitioner, sending the delegation is
nothing, but in furtherance of this defiance of the State Government.
The Petitioner also contends that the actions of the State would give rise
to law and order situation and, therefore, it is imperative that the
delegation is restrained from attending the ceremony and calls upon this
Court to quash Exhibit-P1 order dated 11 March 2025, that is,
according sanction for an official visit to attend the ceremony.
11. The learned Advocate General has relied upon Clauses 12 and 16
of the guidelines in the case of K.S.Varghese to contend that there is no
impediment in respect of the matters of faith and belief. According to
the learned Advocate General, the issue in the case of K.S.Varghese was
primarily relating to administration and had nothing to do with the
matters of faith, and there is no restraint order, either directly or
impliedly, to prohibit the delegation from attending a religious
2025:KER:24144
ceremony. The learned Advocate General has submitted that in the year
2020, the State of Kerala has also enacted legislation, viz., the Kerala
Right to Burial of Corpse in Christian (Malankara Orthodox-Jacobite)
Cemeteries Act, 2020, wherein both the Malankara Orthodox and
Jacobite denominations have been recognised. He submitted that, since
both these denominations are recognized, there is nothing wrong if the
delegation chooses to attend the ceremony. He submitted that the
Petitioner has not demonstrated how attending a religious ceremony
would contravene the orders and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, which primarily pertained to property rights. He also submitted
that there is nothing in the orders of the Supreme Court that prohibits a
particular faction from professing a religious faith. It is also contended
that the Petitioner has not shown anything that the religious ceremony
to be held on 25 March 2025 is in any way setting up a parallel
administration. It is also contended that the orders passed by the Single
Judge and the Division Bench of this Court were considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 30 January 2025 and
that further orders passed by this Court would show that an attempt to
reconcile the issue and introduce legislation is also being made.
According to the learned Advocate General, the observations of the
learned Single Judge of this Court purpotedly against the State, have
either been stayed or set aside, and there cannot be a general indictment
of the State in such a casual manner. He also contended that the
2025:KER:24144
decision to send a delegation cannot be a matter of judicial review.
12. One aspect to be noted is that permission from the Central
Government to grant clearance to the delegation to visit Lebanon is
pending. Despite service, none has appeared for the Respondent No. 3
- Union of India, to inform us about the current position.
13. The Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking to restrain the State of Kerala from
sending a delegation to attend a religious ceremony. To send an official
delegation is a general policy decision of the State. The issue before this
Court in this Petition is not whether the religious head has the authority
to conduct the ceremony but whether, in exercise of writ jurisdiction,
this Court can interfere with a policy decision of the State Government.
Courts do not interfere with policy decisions merely on the ground that
it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is
available. The legality of the policy decision is the subject of judicial
review, not the wisdom or soundness of the decision. The Courts
exercise judicial restraint in matters of policy, unless the decisions fall
within the well-settled exceptions.
14. In the present case, no pre-existing judicial order or statutory
provision is shown to us directly restraining the State from sending a
delegation for this event. There is a debate before us on the distinction
between religious faith and property rights. Accordingly to the learned
2025:KER:24144
Advocate General, this religious ceremony would not contravene the
orders and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which primarily
pertain to property rights. We refer to these arguments only because
these matters will be decided in the proceedings on merits and in
contempt petition if at all taken out. The Central Government has not
yet granted clearance for the visit of the delegation. Clearance may or
may not be granted. It is relevant to note that, though in different
circumstances, there have been instances of State delegations attending
religious events abroad.
15. However, though a case for issuance of mandatory order is not
made out to restrain the delegation, we do take note of the concern
expressed by the Petitioner regarding the possibility of a law and order
situation. The record shows that there have been instances of violence
between these two factions in the State. As the learned Advocate General
has stated, attempts are going on to reconcile the issue, and the
State may come out with legislation to bring about finality and peace. If
that is the end sought to be achieved, maintaining an atmosphere
conducive to finding a lasting solution would be desirable. Apart from
the question of which faction is right, it cannot be denied that the issue
is emotive for many in both factions. The State will have to carefully
ensure that the impugned order Exhibit-P1, whether directly or
indirectly, is not perceived or taken as a cause of violence and
disharmony. Thus, we expect that the State Government and the
2025:KER:24144
Central Government (where clearance is pending) will take further
action in sending the official delegation to Lebanon after considering all
relevant factors - the legal, ethical, and moral, and the consequences
that may ensue.
16. In light of the above, we decline to grant the reliefs sought for by
the Petitioner. We make it clear that our non-interference is based on
the parameters of judicial review and should not be construed as
approval of the impugned action of the State in sending the official
delegation, nor is it a reflection on the merits of the dispute in the
pending proceeding between the rival factions therein.
17. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
S. MANU,
JUDGE
krj
2025:KER:24144
APPENDIX OF WP(PIL) 1/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.
1081/2025/GAD. DATED 11.03.2025.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF A LETTER ISSUED BY SYRIAN ORTHODOX
PATRIARCHATE OF ANTIOCH & ALL THE EAST DATED 27
JANUARY 2025, ANNOUNCING THE ORDINATION OF
JOSEPH MOR GREGORIOS.
EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY E-MAIL ON 16
MARCH 2025 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND TO THE
DELEGATES.
EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16 MARCH
2025 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.3.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-
EXT.R1(A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.2418/2014/GAD DATED 22.03.2014.
EXT.R1(B) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INDIA TODAY NEWS ITEM
DATED 06.12.2024 PERTAINING TO THE VISIT OF THE
CENTRAL TEAM TO WITNESS THE ORDINATION OF KERALA
PRIEST (MONSIGNOR GEORGE JACOB KOOVAKAD) AT
VATICAN.
EXT.R1(C) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS ITEM DATED
06.01.2024 IN HINDUSTAN TIMES PERTAINING TO
APPROVAL BY THE HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER OF
INDIA FOR THE INDIAN DELEGATION TO VISIT VATICAN
CITY FOR THE ORDINATION OF THE KERALA PRIEST
(MONSIGNOR GEORGE JACOB KOOVAKAD) AS CARDINAL
EXT.R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA RIGHT TO BURIAL OF
CORPSE IN CHRISTIAN (MALANKARA ORTHODOX-
JACOBITE) CEMETERIES ACT, 2020.
2025:KER:24144
EXT.R1(E) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2024
OF THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT IN S.L.P(C) NOS.
26064-26069/2024.
EXT.R1(F) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2025
OF THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT IN S.L.P(C) NOS.
26064-26069/2024.
EXT.R1(G) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2021
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL
N0.6/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES
EXT.R1(H) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2022
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL
NO.6/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXT.R1(I) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2022
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL
NO.6/2021.
EXT.R1(J) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2022
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL
NO.6/2021.
EXT.R1(K) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2025
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL
NO.6/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES.
KRJ
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
