Mathai Varkey Muthirenthy v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 39181 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, RESIDING AT MUTHIRENTHY HOUSE, 1-A ROSE GARDEN, MARIAKKUTTY JOHN ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682018.** **BY ADV ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CITY,PARK VIEW, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM-682011.** - **3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682018.** - **4 MAJOR ARCHDIOCESE OF ERNAKULAM-ANGAMALY, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP'S HOUSE, P.B. NO. 2580, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM- 682031 REPRESENTED BY MAR ANDREWS THAZHATHU, S/O.ANTHAPPAYI, APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR, ARCHDIOCESE OF ERNAKULAM-ANGAMALY, RESIDING AT CATHOLIC METROPOLITAN ARCH BISHOP'S HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, THRISSUR- 680005.** W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 2 : - **5 MAR ANDREWS THAZHATHU, S/O.ANTHAPPAYI, APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR, ARCHDIOCESE OF ERNAKULAM - ANGAMALY, RESIDING AT CATHOLIC METROPOLITAN ARCH BISHOP'S HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, THRISSUR- 680005.** - **6 SYNOD OF MAJOR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CHURCH OF ERNAKULAM ANGAMALY, REP. BY MAJOR ARCH. BISHOP CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERY, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O PHILIPPOSE, RESIDING AT SYRO MALABAR ARCHIEPISCOPAL CURIA, MOUNT ST. THOMAS PB NO.3110 KAKKANAD P.O KOCHI, 682030.** - **7 ST. MARY'S CATHEDRAL BASILICA, REP. BY MAR ANDREWS THAZHATHU, S/O.ANTHAPPAYI, APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR, ARCHDIOCESE OF ERNAKULAM -ANGAMALY, RESIDING AT CATHOLIC METROPOLITAN ARCH BISHOP'S HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, THRISSUR-680005.** - **8 FR. ANTONY NARICULAM, VICAR ST. MARYS CATHEDRAL BASILICA, CHURCH STREET, HIGH COURT JUNCTION, BROADWAY, MARINE DRIVE ERNAKULAM, 682031.** - **9 AMT ARCHDIOCESAN MOVEMENT FOR TRANSPARENCY SOCIETY NO EKM/TC/294/2019, PAYYAPALLI 51/510, VYLOPALLI LANE, VYTILLA POST ERNAKULAM 682019 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, RIJU DAVIS, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O K V DEVASSY, KANJUKARAN HOUSE, NADUVANOOR, CHOWARA P.O, ERNAKULAM, 683571.** - **10 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION.P.O, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682030.** W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 3 : **ADDL.R11 REV. FR. ANTONY POOTHAVELIL AGED 68 YEARS, S/O OUSEPH CHACKO, ADMINISTRATOR SEDE PLENA, ST.MARY'S CATHEDRAL BASILICA, CHURCH STREET, HIGH COURT JUNCTION, BROADWAY, MARINE DRIVE ERNAKULAM, 682031.** **[ADDL.R11 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 11TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 22.12.2022 IN I.A.3/2022 IN WP(C)39181/2022.]** **BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV JOHN VARGHESE JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN N.A.SHAFEEK JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN SREENIVASAN K. SONU AUGUSTINE S.A.ANAND ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL SABU PULLAN SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY SRI.K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).39197/2022, 41859/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 4 : # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 39197 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **ARCHBISHOP ANDREWS THAZATH, AGED 71 YEARS** **APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR, ARCHEPARCHY (ARCHDIOCESE) OF ERNAKULAM- ANGAMALY, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP'S HOUSE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM- 682031.** **BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH SARATH K.P.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, OFFICE OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** - **4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 682 031.** W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 5 : **5 ATHIRUPATHA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI, REP. BY ITS CONVENER, FR. SEBASTIAN THALIAN, AGED NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, VICAR, ST. ANTONY'S CHURCH, EDAKKUNNAM, PADUVAPURAM, ERNAKULAM 683 582.** **6 ALMAYA MUNNETTA SAMITHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, RIJU DAVIS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O K.V DEVASSY, KANJOOKARAN HOUSE, NEDUVANNOOR, CHOWARA P.O., ERNAKULAM 683 571.** **BY ADVS. MEENA.A. P.RAMAKRISHNAN PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN T.C.KRISHNA C.ANIL KUMAR ASHA K.SHENOY PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE VINOD RAVINDRANATH K.C.KIRAN M.R.MINI M.DEVESH ASHWIN SATHYANATH ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH THAREEQ ANVER K. SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY SRI.K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).39181/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 6 : # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 41859 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **FR. ANTONY POOTHAVELIL AGED 68 YEARS, ADMINISTRATOR, ST.MARY'S CATHEDRAL BASILICA CHURCH, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.** **BY ADVS.** **JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW & ORDER), OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM PIN – 682031.** - **2 ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM-682031, PIN – 682031.** - **3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682031.** - **4 FR.RAJAN PUNNAKKAL SUBODHANA PASTER CENTRE, KANNAKKANKADAVU ROAD, ANGAMALY SOUTH, ANGAMALY, PIN-683573, PIN – 683573.** - **5 FR.TOM MULLANCHIRA INFANT JESUS CHURCH, KADUKUTTY, KORATTY, PIN – 680315.** W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 7 : - **6 FR.PAUL CHITTILAPPILLY, ST.JOHN NEPUMSIAN CHURCH, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA, KOCHI PIN – 682013.** - **7 FR.JOSEPH PAREKKATTIL MUKTHI SADAN,PUKKATTUPADY, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM PIN – 683562.** - **8 FR.JOY KANNAMPUZHA OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL, AYATHUPADY, KOOVAPPADY PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683544.** - **9 FR.VARGHESE PUTHUVELIKKARA, S.H.MINOR SEMINARY,THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKUAM PIN – 682021.** - **10 DR.ALEX KARIMADOM S.H.MINOR SEMINARY, (GURUKULAM), THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKUAM PIN – 682021.** - **11 FR.JIMMY KARTHANAM, LITTLE FLOWER CHURCH THRIKKAKKARA, BMC, KOCHI PIN – 682021.** - **12 FR.JOSE CHOLIKKARA, ST.SEBASTIAN CHURCH, ASHOKAPURAM, ALUVA – 683101.** - **13 FR.VARGHESE THAIPARAMBIL MANAGER, ATHANI ST.FRANCIS SCHOOL, ATHANI PIN – 683585.** - **14 FR.XAVIER PANATT (BINOY), ASSISTANT VICAR, ST.MARY'S BASILICA CHURCH, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM PIN – 682031.** - **15 FR.ALEX MEKKANTHURUTHU MARTHOMA INTERNATIONAL SHRINE, KURUSUMUDY, MALAYATTUR, PIN – 683587.** - **16 FR.MULAVARICKAL VARGHESE (BIBIN), ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PIN – 683562.** ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 8 : **BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE THAREEQ ANVER K S.A.ANAND S.A P.RAMAKRISHNAN PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN T.C.KRISHNA C.ANIL KUMAR ASHA K.SHENOY GOKUL KRISHNA N.A.SHAFEEK VINOD RAVINDRANATH M.R.MINI MEENA.A. M.DEVESH K.C.KIRAN ASHWIN SATHYANATH ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY SRI.K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).39181/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 9 : ## **N. NAGARESH, J.** ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) Nos.39181, 39197 and 41859 of 2022 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` _Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 2024_ ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ These three writ petitions are based on same set of facts and involve common questions of law. Hence, they are heard together and being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.39181 of 2022 and his family members are Parishioners of the 7[th] respondentSt. Mary’s Cathedral Basilica of Archdiocese of ErnakulamAngamaly. The petitioner states that he is bound to attend the Mass as prescribed by the Holy See and the 6[th] respondent Synod of Major Archiepiscopal Church of Ernakulam-Angamaly. The petitioner states that the 5[th] respondent is the Apostolic Administrator of the 4[th] ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 10 : respondent Major Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly appointed by the Roman Pontiff and he has issued a Ext.P1 Circular dated 30.09.2022. The 5[th] respondent on 20.11.2022 declared that from 27.11.2022, the Unified Synodal Mass, as directed by Ext.P1 Circular will be celebrated in the Church at 6 a.m. 3. When the petitioner along with his wife reached the Church by 5.30 a.m., the gates of the Church were locked and the members of the 9[th] respondent, who had assembled inside the Church and its premises, obstructed the petitioner. One among the miscreants threw a bottle filled with liquid on the petitioner, consequent to which he suffered injury and pain. 4. The 5[th] respondent reached in front of the Church by 5.45 a.m., but was not allowed to enter into the Church. The miscreants who had assembled inside the Church were hurling abuses and threats against the 5[th] respondent and demanded that he must not enter the Church. As a result, the 5[th] respondent could not perform the scheduled Synodal ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 11 : Mass at 6 a.m. in the Church. 5. The petitioner alleges that the 3[rd] respondentStation House Officer, who was aware of the issue, did not immediately interfere to abate the criminal trespass, intimidation and obstruction. The 3[rd] respondent locked the Church and the issue is pending consideration before the District Collector, Ernakulam. The members of the 9[th] respondent-AMT, Archdiocesan Movement for Transparency Society and other miscreants assembling in front of the Church are blocking the road, interfering with vehicular movements and thereby causing law and order situation. The Parishioners of the Church lodged Ext.P2 complaint before the 2[nd] respondent-Commissioner of Police. The 9[th] respondent had filed OS No.825/2021 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam seeking injunction restraining respondents 4 to 6 from performing the Unified Synodal Mass. The interim application for injunction filed by the 9[th] respondent stands dismissed as per Ext.P3 order dated 26.11.2021. ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 12 : 6. The petitioner states that the members of the 9[th] respondent and other miscreants are still threatening the petitioner and his family and are obstructing the petitioner from attending the Unified Synodal Mass in the Church, performed by the 5[th] respondent. The petitioner therefore seeks to direct the 2[nd] respondent-Commissioner of Police to give adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members to attend the Unified Synodal Holy Mass performed by the 5[th] respondent in the 7[th] respondentChurch. 7. W.P.(C) No.39197 of 2022 has been filed by the Archbishop of Thrissur Archeparchy, who is appointed by Pope Francis / Apostolic See, as Apostolic Administrator with the full powers of the Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly. The petitioner states that the Synod of Bishops is the final authority of Syro-Malabar hierarchy to prescribe the procedures of liturgy and to decide the basic structure of liturgy. It is the duty of the Eparchial-Diocesan Bishop to enforce it in his Eparchy/Dioces. ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 13 : 8. According to the petitioner, the Synod of Bishops of Syro-Malabar decided to implement Uniform Mode of Holy Mass and gave instructions to all the 35 Dioceses. As many as 34 Dioceses had implemented and followed the law as per the Synodal decision on the Uniform Mode to celebrate Holy Mass, prescribing the procedure, whereby the Priest will face people in the first part, and concluding part and facing the Altar in the second part. This decision was not fully implemented in all the Churches of the Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese/Archeparchy. Four Churches under the Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese has already implemented the Uniform Mode of Holy Mass. 9. The petitioner alleges that a small group of believers in the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly, who claim to be Athirupatha Samrakshana Samithi and Almaya Munnetta Samithi, started agitation against the present procedure adopted by Synod of Bishops and started to interfere with the Holy Mass, creating problems by protesting against lawful implementation of Uniform Mode of Holy Mass. ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 14 : 10. By Ext.P1 communication dated 30.07.2022 of His Holiness Pope Francis, the petitioner was appointed as Apostolic Administrator of the Archeparchy of ErnakulamAngamaly Archdiocese. The petitioner, as Apostolic Administrator, issued Ext.P2 Circular in the light of the decisions taken by the Synod of Bishops and the directives of the Apostolic See. Based on Ext.P2, Holy Mass is to be conducted in the Cathedral Basilica Church in Ernakulam and arrangements were made for the same on 27.11.2022. 11. Some of the organisations started agitation against Uniform Mode of Holy Mass. The Procurator of the Major Archbishop's House of Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese informed the matter to the 3[rd] respondent-City Police Commissioner as per Ext.P3 communication dated 16.10.2022. When the petitioner reached the St. Mary’s Basilica Church, antisocial elements arranged by the 5[th] respondent-Athirupatha Samrakshana Samithi and the 6[th] respondent-Almaya Munnetta Samithi started violent protest and obstructed the petitioner from entering the Church to ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 15 : perform the Holy Mass. They also obstructed the petitioner from entering Major Archbishop's House situated in the same campus. On 30.11.2022, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 complaint to the 3[rd] respondent. Though the petitioner also submitted detailed representation with a request to give adequate protection to the life of the petitioner for the smooth ingress and egress to the Church and to the Archbishop's House, the police authorities have not extended necessary protection. The petitioner therefore seeks to direct respondents 2 to 4 to grant cogent and adequate protection to the life of the petitioner from the hands of respondents 5 and 6 and their henchmen. 12. W.P.(C) No.41859/2022 has been filed by the petitioner, who has been appointed as the Administrator of St. Mary's Basilica Church as per Ext.P1 blessing dated 16.12.2022 of the Apostolic Administrator of ErnakulamAngamaly. The petitioner states that he has taken charge as the Administrator of the Basilica Church before the Apostolic Administrator on 16.12.2022 and on the same day ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 16 : the Apostolic Administrator had authorised him to receive the key of the Cathedral Basilica and function as per his directives. 13. On taking charge, the petitioner realised that certain organisations were trying to defy the laws of the Church and its conventions. Those persons, including certain Priests, resisted and opposed the lawful authority of the petitioner as Administrator. They created nuisance in the Basilica Church. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) for adequate and effective protection for himself, in discharging his functions as the Administrator of the Basilica Church. On 20.12.2022, when he was about to celebrate the Holy Qurbana in the Cathedral Basilica as per the directive of the Apostolic Administrator, respondents 4 to 16 forcibly prevented him from discharging his duty and respondents 4 to 16 started celebrating Holy Qurbana in accordance with their whims and fancies. The petitioner therefore prayed that respondents 1 to 3 be directed to grant W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 17 : adequate and effective police protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner enabling him to perform and discharge his official duties in St. Mary's Basilica Church. 14. The 5[th] respondent in W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 filed a counter affidavit. The 5[th] respondent stated that when he went to the Church for celebrating Holy Mass on 27.11.2022, some miscreants obstructed him and he could not celebrate the Holy Mass as decided earlier. Though the 5[th] respondent informed the Police, the Police did not give protection to celebrate the Holy Mass in the Church. The 5[th] respondent had approached the SHO as well as the City Police Commissioner seeking to give adequate protection to his life for entering into the Major Archbishop House to perform his duties as entrusted by the Apostolic See. The 5[th] respondent has filed W.P.(C) No.39197/2022 in this regard. 15. The 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition and submitted that all faithful as members of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church are bound to accept and obey the decision of the Synod and ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 18 : exhortations / advices of the Pope on all matters including unified Holy Mass. All Churches and Parishioners of SyroMalabar Church are duty bound to implement the same including the 7[th] respondent-Basilica Church. 16. The 8[th] respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 8[th] respondent submitted that the 5[th] respondent cannot represent the Church. The 8[th] respondent stated that there is no reason to think that there was any threat to the life of the petitioner or to the 5[th] respondent. The allegation that the persons assembled inside the Church hurled abuses and threats against the 5[th] respondent, are all false allegations. No weapons were found by the Police in the Church compound. There is no _bona fides_ in the allegation that the petitioner was threatened or obstructed by any miscreants. It is the petitioner himself who locked the gate from outside and prevented the 5[th] respondent and others from entering the Church. The proposal to hold some portions of the Holy Mass facing people and some portions facing the Altar, has no legal validity and cannot be ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 19 : implemented. The said form of celebrating Holy Mass is against the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. 17. The 9[th] respondent, who is the Secretary of the Archdiocesan Movement for Transparency Society (AMT), however, filed counter affidavit resisting the writ petition. The 9[th] respondent submitted that it is a few supporters of the 5[th] respondent, who conspired and created unpleasant situation in the Basilica so as to make it appear that there was a law and order situation in the Church and its premises, in order to implement their hidden agenda in a clandestine manner. 18. The 9[th] respondent stated that the 5[th] respondent had never performed unified Synodal Mass in the 7[th] respondent-Church. The Mass is being celebrated in the manner which was being followed from time immemorial. 19. When the petitioner arrived at the Church on 27.11.2022 at about 5.45 a.m., a large contingent of policemen was present in front of the Church. More than 1000 devotees were remaining locked in the Church premises. The police did not allow the 5[th] respondent to ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 20 : alight at the Church gate and his convoy was sent away. About 100 strong mob brought by the 5[th] respondent rushed to the Bishop's House after showering abuses on the Parishioners. Those in the mob caused extensive damage to the furniture and television in Bishop's house. The 9[th] respondent stated that there is no law and order problem or situation warranting police protection. 20. The 5[th] respondent-Athirupatha Samrakshana Samithi filed counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.39197/2022. The 5[th] respondent stated that the decision alleged to have been taken by the 'Synod of Bishops' in 2021 as found in Ext.R5(a), goes against the spirit of the decision taken by the Synod in the year 2001. It was without following requisite procedural formalities for convening a Synod meeting, the alleged decision of 2021 was taken. The 2021 August Synod meeting does not have canonicity as per the Code of Canon Law. 21. The 5[th] respondent urged that many of the Churches under the Ernakulam-Angamaly Dioceses are not ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 21 : following Uniform Mode of Holy Mass. Majority of the Priests and Laity oppose the Uniform Mode of Holy Mass. They honestly believe that the attempt is to bring back an old practice which was given a go bye for about the last six decades by the interference of progressive movements inside the Church. There are more than 325 Churches within Ernakulam- Angamaly Archdiocese. The newly introduced Uniform Mode of Holy Mass is followed only in four Churches and there also it was implemented by force. The official administrative bodies of all the remaining Churches have passed resolutions opposing the proposed Uniform Mode of Holy Mass. 22. The 5[th] respondent asserted that out of the 465 Priests within Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese, 455 are against the implementation of Uniform Mode of Holy Mass. 23. The 5[th] respondent stated that the decision to hold Uniform Mode of Holy Mass was not actually taken by Holy Pope. The 5[th] respondent asserted that the believers have staged their protest against forcefully enforcing Uniform ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 22 : Mode of Holy Mass, in front of the Basilica. They have never obstructed the entry of the petitioner in the Basilica or in the Bishop's House. The 5[th] respondent stated that they do not intend to interfere with any of the administrative functions of the office of the Apostolic Administrator. 24. The 6[th] respondent-Almaya Munnetta Samithi also resisted W.P.(C) No.39197/2022 filing counter affidavit. The 6[th] respondent stated that the petitioner was appointed as Apostolic Administrator of the Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese as per Ext.P1 consequent to the resignation of the Archbishop Mar Antony Kariyil. The Archbishop was compelled to resign on account of various factors including differences in opinion between the Archdiocese and the Syro-Malabar Church leadership in the matter of holding Uniform Mode of Holy Mass. On his assumption of office as Apostolic Administrator, the petitioner issued Ext.P2 Circular requiring celebration of Holy Qurbana in the uniform mode. The said directive was opposed by all the 16 Foranes in the Archeparchy. Out of the 465 Priests in the Archdiocese, 377 W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 23 : Priests have signed resolution expressing reservation against Ext.P2 Circular. The Samithi has not created any situation to threaten the believers from attending the Holy Mass. 25. The 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C) No.41859/2022 filed counter affidavit and stated that the closure of the Basilica Church was of the petitioner's own making. Video records would show involvement of the petitioner and his men in the whole issue. It is the petitioner and his supporters who created a law and order situation to tide over the overwhelming opposition in the Archdiocese against the celebration of Holy Mass in the uniform mode. 26. The 9[th] respondent in W.P.(C) No.41859/2022, in their counter affidavit, submitted that the St. Mary's Cathedral Basilica is established in AD 1112 by the faithful of the locality. The Archdiocese was constituted only in the year AD 1896. The Church belongs to the Christian faithful of the area. The petitioner is only a Trustee. He cannot insist that a particular form of Qurbana is to be implemented in the ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 24 : Church. A particular form of Qurbana is being celebrated in the Church for the last more than 30 years. The said form of Qurbana cannot be changed without following the procedure contemplated under the Canon Law. The dispute with respect to the manner in which the particular ritual is to be celebrated is not to be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 27. Respondents 12 to 16 have also filed counter affidavit opposing grant of any order of police protection. Respondents 12 to 16 submitted that 99% of the parishioners of St. Mary's Basilica are against the new mode of celebrating Holy Mass and they demanded the continuance of celebration of Holy Mass in the manner in which it is being conducted from time immemorial. Respondents 4 to 16 have no authority whatsoever to prevent the petitioner from exercising lawful authority entrusted to the 6[th] respondent. 28. Respondents 12 to 16 submitted that the concern of the believers was placed before the Synod by their ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 25 : representative Priests. The new mode of performance of Holy Mass is introduced in order to create havoc and divert the attention of believers from the issue of land scam in which the superior of the Archdiocese is involved. 29. On 17.12.2022, the Parish Council of St. Mary's Cathedral Basilica unanimously passed resolution to continue the mode of celebration of Holy Mass by facing the believers. On 18.12.2022, a group of Senior Priests under the leadership of Dr. George Vithayathil tried to meet and convince the petitioner regarding the wish of most of the believers on celebration of Holy Mass. They purposefully disturbed the peaceful atmosphere in the Basilica consequent to which the police intervened. 30. In all the afore three writ petitions, the petitioners seek adequate police protection for the petitioners and others, to attend Unified Synodal Holy Mass in the Church. Though prime prayers in the writ petitions are for police protection, to justify the prayers, the petitioners have urged various factual and legal grounds. The arguments put forth ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 26 : by the petitioners raise questions as to whether the decision taken by the Synod of Bishops in 2021 goes against the spirit of the decision taken by the Synod in the year 2001 and whether the decision of the Synod of Bishops was following requisite procedural formalities for convening a Synod meeting. Questions also were put forth as regards whether the 2021 August Synod meeting does have canonicity as per the Code of Canon Law. 31. It is also asserted that majority of the Priests and Laity opposed the Uniform Mode of Holy Mass. Serious disputes have been raised as regards whether the decision to hold Uniform Mode of Holy Mass was actually taken by Holy Pope or not. Question also arises whether the incident occurred in and near the Cathedral Basilica on 20.12.2022 was at the instance of the groups belonging to petitioners or the respondents. 32. Though the contesting parties advanced various arguments and the relied on various provisions of the Canon Law and statutory laws as also judgments and precedents of ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 27 : the Hon’ble Apex Court, I find that those issues raised by the parties are intrinsically civil disputes in nature and involve adjudication on disputed questions of facts. 33. In such circumstances, the very maintainability of these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be decided first. 34. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Srivari Daadaa v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams [SLP(C) No.6554/2021], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reliefs sought for in relation to dispute in the nature of day to day rituals in places of worship cannot be gone into by writ courts. Whether any ritual is being performed in a prescribed way or whether there is any deviation from established practice would raise disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in a writ petition. These are not the issues for which the court possesses expertise. If rituals are not being done according to the set of principles, one will be at liberty to approach the civil court to prove his claims with evidence. ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 28 : 35. It is settled law that right of parishioners in an Episcopal Church is to enter the Church and remain there for purpose of participating in divine worship, to have a seat and to obey the reasonable directions of the Church to ordain. 36. _**Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews II v. State of Kerala** [2007 (3) KLT 349 (SC)]_ related to a dispute centering around the management of Churches known as Syrian Churches. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered whether in such nature of disputes, the High Court should have gone into the contentions of the parties. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no doubt, exercises a plenary power. But then certain limitations in regard thereto are well accepted. Ordinarily, a writ of or in the nature of mandamus would be issued against a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or the public authorities discharging public functions or a public utility concern or where the functions of the respondents are referable to a statute, which a fortiorari ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 29 : mean that save and except for good reasons court would not entertain a matter involving private law remedy. 37. In the judgment in _**P.R. Murlidharan and others**_ _**v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others**_ _[(2006) 4 SCC 501]_ , the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of civil court is wide and plenary and in cases of such nature, a writ proceeding cannot be a substitute for civil suit. The Apex Court held that such might have been the contentions of the appellants before the High Court, such disputed questions in regard to title of the properties or the right of one group against the other in respect of management of Churches could not have been the subject matter for determination by a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the garb of grant of police protection to one or the other appellants. 38. In _**P.R. Murlidharan and others**_ (supra), the Apex Court held that it is one thing to say that in a given case, a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 30 : that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. In his concurring judgment, His Lordship Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan (as His Lordship then was) held that a writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. Protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil court, a writ of mandamus cannot be sought. The court held that the temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would remain W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 31 : effective and meaningful only when it is exercised prudently and in appropriate situations. 39. A writ of “police protection” so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory state in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order. 40. In the case of the petitioners, the disputes are already pending before civil courts. The issues relate to disputed questions of fact. The issues fall within the realm of civil rights. In the facts of the case, taking into consideration the settled law on exercise of writ jurisdiction, relief of police protection cannot be granted to the petitioners in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed. However, the State and police will be at liberty to interfere in W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 32 : the matter appropriately if there arise any issues of law and order situation in future. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 33 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39181/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** |**Exhibit P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.9/2022**| |---|---| ||**ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED**| ||**30.09.2022.**| |**Exhibit P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY**| ||**THE PARISHIONERS OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT**| ||**CHURCH.**| |**Exhibit P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN**| ||**I.A.NO.1/2021**<br>**IN**<br>**O.S.NO.825/2021**| ||**PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM**| ||**DATED 26.11.2021.**| |**Exhibit P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER**| ||**DATED 16.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**Exhibit P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED**| ||**21.12.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**Exhibit P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED**| ||**4.7.2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT**| |**6TH RESPONDENT'S**|**EXHIBITS**| |**Exhibit R6(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED NOTE DATED**| ||**15/08/2021.**| |**Exhibit R6(b)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| ||**25/03/2022.**| |**Exhibit R6(c)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.03/2022**| ||**DATED 06/04/2022 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**METROPOLITAN VICAR OF THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit R6(d)**|**TRUE**<br>**TRANSLATED**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**| ||**APPOINTMENT LETTER OF THE 5TH**| ||**RESPONDENT APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR**| ||**DATED 30/07/2022.**| |**Exhibit R6(e)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION DATED**| ||**17/11/2022**<br>**ISSUED**<br>**BY**<br>**THE**<br>**TH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 34 : ## **8TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **Exhibit R8(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CLAUSE 26 (VII) OF ERNAKULAM ANGAMALY ATHIROOPATHA NIYAMA SAMHITHA, Exhibit R8(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CC TV FOOTAGE OF CLOSING THE GATE OF THE CHURCH COMPOUND FROM OUT SIDE ON 27.11.2022, BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit R8(c) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF PETITIONER AND HIS HENCHMEN AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE CHURCH BUILDING BLOCKING PRIESTS CELEBRATING HOLY MASS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS (PETITIONER IS RESTING ON A COT BROUGHT BY THE OBSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS ARE RESTING ON THE CHAIRS) IN THE 7TH RESPONDENT CHURCH. Exhibit R8(d) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED AT THE MEETING OF THE PARISH COUNCIL OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT HELD ON 19.4.2022. 9TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT Exhibit-R9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.02.2023** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES** **DOCUMENT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF STATUTES OF SYNOD OF BISHOPS DOCUMENT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF CANON 657** ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 35 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39197/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 30.07.2022 BY HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS, BY WHICH PETITIONER WAS APPOINTED AS APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ARCHEPARCHY OF ERNAKULAMANGAMALY DIOCESE . Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.9/2022 ISSUED ON 30.09.2022 AND SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE CAPACITY AS APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR. Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.10.2022 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR AS AN EPARCHIAL BISHOP OF ERNAKULAMANGAMALY DATED 17.11.2022. Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED. 20.11.2022 RECEIVED FROM THE VICAR OF ST. MARY'S CATHEDRAL BASILICA ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT.** **5TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **Exhibit R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SYNODAL NEWS, IXTH STANDARD (2021) Exhibit R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18/10/2022 Exhibit R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE ON 27/11/2022 Exhibit R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 24/11/2022** ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 36 : **Exhibit R5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PRESBYTERAL COUNCIL TO THE OFFICE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 24/11/2022** **Exhibit R5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/11/2022 SUBMITTED BY 9 SENIOR BISHOPS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INCIDENTS OCCURRED NEAR THE BASILICA AND BISHOPS HOUSE, TO THE MAJOR ARCHIBHISHOP** ## **6TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit R6(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.10.2022 ISSUED BY ATHIROOPATHA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI TO THE PETITIONER.** - **Exhibit R6(b) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.10.2022 FROM THE PROCURATOR OF THE MAJOR ARCH BISHOP'S HOUSE OF ERNAKULAM - ANGAMALY ARCH DIOCESE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit R6(c) TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 30.10.2022 PASSED BY THE PARISH COUNCIL OF ST. MARY'S CATHEDRAL BASILICA.** - **Exhibit R6(d) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.11.2022 FROM THE PROTO SYNCELLUS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE PRESBYTERAL COUNCIL.** **Exhibit R6(e) TRUE COPY OF PRESS REPORT DATED 24.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE SYRO MALABAR MEDIA COMMISSION. Exhibit R6(f) TRUE COPY OF REPORT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY OF 26.11.2022 IN RELATION TO THE MEETING HELD BY THE SYNOD REPRESENTATIVES OF 26.11.2022.** - **Exhibit R6(g) TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 27.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, ERNAKULAM.** - **Exhibit R6(h) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.11.2022 WRITTEN BY THE 9 BISHOPS OF THE DIOCESE TO THE PONTIFF.** ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 37 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41859/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** |**Exhibit-P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINMENT**| |---|---| ||**NO.PROT.NO.ES/TA/4858,**<br>**DATED**| ||**16-12-2022.**| |**Exhibit-P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 0F THE**| ||**APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESSES TO**| ||**DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF ERNAKULAM DATED**| ||**16-12-2022.**| |**Exhibit-P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE**| ||**DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LAW &**| ||**ORDER)**<br>**ERNAKULAM**<br>**DATED**| ||**18-12-2022.**| |**Exhibit P4**|**The true copy of the FIR No.1865 dated**| ||**21.12.2022**| |**Exhibit P5**|**The true copy of the Order in**| ||**I.A.No.1/2021 in O.S.No.825./2021**| ||**dated 26.11.2021**| |**Exhibit P6**|**The true copy of the decree of**| ||**Congregation**<br>**of**<br>**Oriental**<br>**dated**| ||**09.06.2021.**| |**Exhibit P7**|**The true copy of the letter dated**| ||**03.07.2021**| |**Exhibit P8**|**The true copy of the circular dated**| ||**27.08.2021 No.Prot.No.0923/2021**| |**Exhibit P9**|**The true copy of the letter dated**| ||**25.03.2022**| |**Exhibit P10**|**The true copy of the circular**| ||**No.04/2022 dated 6 the April 2022**| |**Exhibit P11**|**The true copy of the circular**| ||**No.5/2022 dated 07/04/2022**| |**Exhibit P12**|**The true copy of the Circular**| ||**No.9/2022 dated 30/09/2022.**| |**Exhibit P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 16-12-**| ||**1992**| |**Exhibit P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/ DECREE NO**| ||**PROT.N.200/1993 DATED 19-01-1998**| ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 38 : **Exhibit P15 RUE COPY OF THE DECITION OF XXVIII SYNOD (2020( SECESSION 1, 2020 JANUARY 10-15** - **Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE OF HIS BEATITUDE CARDINAL GEORGE ALANCHERY DATED 08-09-2021** - **Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THEORDER NO.PROT.NO. AA 41/2023 BY THE APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF ERNAKULAM-ANGAMALY, DATED 04-072023** - **Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTING ORDER (KALPANA) PROT.NO.ES/TA/5068 (AA41/2023 DATED 04.07.2023** - **Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APOSTOLATE ADMINISTRATOR OF ERNAKULAMANGAMALY NO.PROT.NO.AA40/2023 DATED 04.07.2023.** - **Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THEAPPOINTING ORDER (KALPANA) PROT.NO.ES/TA/5067 (AA40/2023 DATED 04.07.2023) DIRECTING MSGR. ANTONY NARIKULAM TO TAKE CHARGE IN THE ST.MARY'S FORANE CHURCH, MOOZHIKULAM FROM 04.07.2023** - **Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOURSE TO THE APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF ERNAKULAMANGAMALY, DATED 04-07-2023.** - **Exhibit P22** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. (PROT.NO.AA42/2023) DISMISSING THE RECOURSE DATED 05.07.2023.** - **Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE COMMUNICATED THROUGH WHATSAPP** - **Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ERRCTION OF TEMPORARY SHED BEFORE THE GATE OF THE CHURCH.** - **Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE SHO,ERNAKULAM DATED 05-07-2023** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit R-6(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/10/2022 WRITTEN BY ATHIROOPATHA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY.** ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 39 : - **Exhibit R-6(b) TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 30/10/2022 SIGNED BY 42 OUT OF 49 MEMBERS OF THE PARISH COUNCIL** - **Exhibit R-6(c) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20/11/2022 WRITTEN BY THE VICAR OF ST. MARY'S CATHEDRAL BASILICA TO ARCH BISHOP MAR ANDREWS THAZHATH.** - **Exhibit R-6(d) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/11/2022 FROM THE PROTO SYNCELLUS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE PRESBYTERAL COUNCIL.** - **ExhibitR-6(e) TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 24/11/2022 ISSUED BY THE SYRO MALABAR MEDIA COMMISSION** - **Exhibit R-6(f) TRUE COPY OF REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY OF 26/11/2022.** - **Exhibit R-6(g) TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 27/11/2022 REGISTERED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL.** - **Exhibit R-6(h) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28/11/2022 WRITTEN BY THE 9 BISHOPS OF THE DIOCESE TO THE PONTIFF** - **Exhibit R-6(i) TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 17/12/2022 PASSED BY THE PARISH COUNCIL.** - **Exhibit R-6(j) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/10/2022 AND THE ATTACHED RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE PRIESTS OF 16 FORANES.** - **Exhibit R-6(k) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 825/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.** - **Exhibit R-6(l) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/4/2023 WRITTEN BY THE 455 PRIESTS OF THE SYRO MALABAR CHURCH** - **Exhibit R-6(m) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28/5/2023 ISSUED BY SYRO MALABAR COMMISSION** - **Exhibit R-6(n) TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 14/6/2023 SIGNED BY THE VICAR AND THE TRUSTEES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ARCH BISHOP ANDREW THAZHATH.** - **Exhibit R-6(o) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 16/6/2023 FROM THE VICAR AND THE TWO TRUSTEES TO THE ARCH BISHOP** ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 40 : |**Exhibit R-6(p)**|**TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR - PROT. NO.**| |---|---| ||**0597/2023 - ISSUED BY MAJOR ARCH**| ||**BISHOP.**| |**Exhibit R-6(q)**|**TRUE COPY OF RECOURSE DATED 8/7/2023**| ||**FROM FR. ANTONY NARIKULAM TO HIS**| ||**EXCELLENCY**<br>**ARCHBISHOP**<br>**CLAUDIO**| ||**GUGEROTTI,**| |**RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS**|**RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS**| |---|---| |**Exhibit-R12(a)**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED**| ||**24.12.2022 ISSUED UNDER THE NAME OF**| ||**MARTHOMA NASRANI SANGHAM**| |**Exhibit-R12(b)**|**THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF ATTACKING THE**| ||**PRIESTS BY THE HENCHMEN OF THE**| ||**PETITIONER HEREIN INCLUDING SRI.**| ||**MATHAI MUTHIRENTHI**| |**Exhibit-R12(c)**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED**| ||**BY THE PARISH COUNCIL OF ST MARY'S**| ||**CATHEDRAL BASILICA ERNAKULAM DATED**| ||**30.10.2022.**| |**Exhibit-R12(d)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED**| ||**17.12.2022 PASSED BY THE PARISH**| ||**COUNCIL**| |**Exhibit-R12(e)**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE DEPUTED BY**| ||**PARISH COUNCIL**| |**Exhibit-R12(f)**|**THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SYNODAL NEWS**| ||**(BULLETIN OF THE SYRO MALABAR MAJOR**| ||**ARCHIEPISCOPAL CHURCH) VOLUME 29,**| ||**DECEMBER, 2021.**| |**Exhibit-R12(g)**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME**| ||**NO.1704/2022**<br>**OF**<br>**CENTRAL**<br>**POLICE**| ||**STATION, ERNAKULAM.**| |**Exhibit-R12(h)**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER /**| ||**APPOINMENT LETTER DATED 25.02.2023.**| |**Exhibit-R12(i)**|**THE TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED**| ||**14.01.2023 BY THE MAJOR ARCHBISHOPS**| ||**GEORGE CARDINAL ALLENCHERY**| ## W.P.(C) No.39181/2022 & connected cases : 41 : **Exhibit-R12(j) TRUE COPY OF APART FROM THAT THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SYNODAL NEWS OF VIII SYNOD (2000) SESSION I, WHICH ALSO DISCUSSED WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM MODE OF CELEBRATION OF DIVINE LITURGY WERE DISCUSSED.** **Exhibit-R12(K) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF IX SYNOD (2001)** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES** **Annexure - 1 TRUE COPY OF DECISION REPORTED IN 2006 (4) SCC 501 P.R. MURALEEDHARAN AND ORS VS. SWAMY DHARMANANDA THEERTHA PADAR AND ORS Annexure - 2 TRUE COPY OF DECISION REPORTED IN 2007 (3) KLT 349 (SC) II) MORAN MAR BASELIOS MARTHOMA MATHEWS-II VS. STATE OF KERALA Annexure - 3 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 6554/2021 OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SREEVARI DAADAA VS. THIRUMALA THIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM Annexure - 4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 17/3/2016 IN FR. GEORGE PATLATT AND ANR VS. S.I. OF POLICE AND ORS (WP (C) 5035 OF 2016)** **Annexure - 5 TRUE COPY OF DECISION REPORTED IN 2018 (4) KHC 712 (FR. THOMAS PAUL RAMBACHAN VS. STATE POLICE CHIEF AND ORS**