St. Mary's Orthodox Church, Odakkali and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Others

W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN THURSDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023/ 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18091 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 ST.MARYS ORTHODOX CHURCH (ODAKKALI PALLI) ODAKKALI P.O., ARAKKAPADY VILALGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIOCESAN METROPOLITAN REV.FR.GEORGE PATALATTU. 2 REV.FR.GEORGE PATALATTU, VICAR APPOINTED THE DIOCESAN METROPOLITAN ST.MARY'S CORTHODOX CHURCH, ODAKKALI, RESIDING AT PATALATTU HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA POST, VENGOLA KARA, ARAKKAPPADY, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 547. BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS SHRI.HARIMOHAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 2 - 3 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, PIN-682 031. - 4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030. - 5 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 101. - *6 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA, PIN-683 101. is corrected as per order dated 20.7.2023 in I.A.No.4/2023 _THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE/ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 542_ - *7 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RDO, ALUVA, PIN-683 101.is corrected as per order dated 20.7.2023 in I.A.No.4/2023 _REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA – 683 373._ - 8 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (SHO), KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, KURUPPAMPADY (PO), ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 545. 9 FR.JOBY VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, URAPPAI HOUSE, PUNNORPPADI BHAGAM, MULAVOOR, THRIKKALATHOOR KARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686 673. W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 3 - 10 JIBI M.BABY, S/O.BENNY, MENOTH MALIL HOUSE, IRINGOLE, PERUMBAVOOR VILALGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 545. - 11 E.G.GEORGEKUTTY, EDAKUDY HOUSE, METHALA KARA, METHALA P.O., ASAMANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 545. - 12 MAR THOMAS DIONYSINE, RESIDING AT PARTRIARKIS CENRE, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 308. - 13 ROY VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, MENOTHMALIL HOUSE, ODAKKALI KARA, ASAMANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 549. - 14 ADDL. R14 BASIL M.ELDHOSE, AGED 36 YEARS AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. M.P. ELDHOSE, MUKALATH HOUSE, ODAKALY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683549. 15 ADDL.R.15.PAUL VARGHESE AGED 63 YEARS, PRESIDENT, JACOBITE ALMAYA FORUM, REG. NO. 112/IV/16, S/O. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT KURUVICHARANGARA HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM.P.O., ERNAKULAM-683562. (ADDITIONAL R14 & R15 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24-11-2021 IN IA NOS. 1/2021 & 2/2021) 16 ADDL.R16. K.A.JOHN AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. LATE ABRAHAM, KUMBALASSERIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (ADDITIONAL R16 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14-12-2021 IN IA 3/2021 IN WP(C) 18091/2020). W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR VICTOR GEORGE V.M. ADDL.R16. K.A.JOHN(Party-In-Person) SRI.SUNIL JACOB SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL) SMT.SMITHA.E.MOHAN SRI.E.S.FIROS SMT.AMRUTHA K.P. N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SMITHA (EZHUPUNNA) DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT CHITRA JOHNSON SHYAMPRASANTH T.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2023, THE COURT ON 13.04.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 5 ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.18091 of 2020 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13[th] day of April, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** 1. This writ petition is filed by the St.Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Odakkali, Arakkapady Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, Ernakulam District represented by the Vicar of the church seeking directions to respondents 1 to 8 to afford adequate protection to the life of the 2[nd] petitioner and other Clergy including the Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates, Metropolitans and the Catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Church appointed under the 1934 Constitution to conduct religious services in the 1[st] petitioner Church, its cemetery, parish hall and kurishadies and also to the Parishioners of the Church, who declare allegiance to the 1934 Constitution in participating in such religious services without any obstruction, interruption or hindrance from respondents 9 to 13 their men, agents or followers of Jacobite faction. A further W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 6 prayer is made seeking directions to respondents 1 to 6 to act strictly adhering to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Varghese's case ensuring that no priests or prelates appointed otherwise than in accordance with Malankara Orthodox Church Constitution of 1934 conduct any sacraments including Holy Mass in the 1[st] petitioner Church, its parish hall, cemetery or any other appurtenant buildings thereto. 2.I have heard Sri.S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, as instructed by Adv.Roshen D.Alexander and Sri.Asok M. Cherian, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as Sri.P.K Suresh Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.10, instructed by Adv.Saji Varghese, Sri.Thomas Geevarghese the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.13, Sri.K.J.Kuriachan, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9, Sri.N.Nandakumar Menon, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.14 as instructed by Sri V. V. Nandagopal Nambiar,, Sri Victor George V.M the learned counsel 7 W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 appearing for respondent No.15 and Sri.K.A John, appeared in person for the additional 16[th] respondent. 3.It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 1[st] petitioner Church is one of the churches of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and is included as Serial No.724 in the list of 1064 churches under the Sabha attached to O.S No.4/1979. Exts.P1 is the Kalpana of the Diocesan Metropolitan, Angamali Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Church appointing the 2[nd] petitioner as the Vicar of the 1[st] petitioner Church. It is submitted that though the 1[st] petitioner is admittedly a Constituent Church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church which was founded in the year 1944, Church is under the parallel administration by the Jacobite faction. None of the Vicars lawfully appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan of the Angamali Diocese in accordance with the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church were permitted to enter the premises of the Church or to conduct religious services by the sympathizers of the Jacobite/Patriarch faction. W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 8 4.It is stated that three parishioners of the 1[st] petitioner church filed O.S.No.2/2018 before the Additional District Court, North Paravoor after obtaining leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Later, the suit was transferred to the 1[st] Additional District Court, Ernakulam (Special Court assigned for handling church cases) and was re-numbered as O.S.No.30/2019 on the files of the 1[st] Additional District Court, Ernakulam. After the transfer of the suit, the petitioners therein filed I.A.No.4634/2019 seeking declaration that the church and assets described in the plaint schedule are to be administered under 1934 Constitution and further to restrain the respondents 3 to 6 therein and their supporters and partisans from obstructing the Vicar appointed under the 1934 Constitution. The 1[st] Additional District Court allowed the application by Ext.P3 order. Aggrieved by the non enforcement of Ext.P3 order, I.A 8996/2019 was filed by the petitioners seeking police assistance. Thereafter, Ext. P4 order was passed by the court granting police assistance to the 2[nd] petitioner Vicar for entering the Church and conducting the W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 9 religious services without obstruction from anybody. It is submitted that Ext.P4 order was not implemented and the State Police further filed affidavits seeking extension of time for implementing the orders. - 5.It is submitted that since 2[nd] petitioner is the lawfully appointed Vicar as per the 1934 Constitution, respondents 1 to 8 are duty bound to implement the judgment of the Apex Court. However, the 2[nd] petitioner is physically prevented from entering the 1[st] petitioner Church and performing their duties. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the police are duty bound to afford adequate assistance to see that the directions of the Apex Court are complied with in full and that the refusal to do so is completely inexcusable. - 6.The 13[th] respondent has placed a counter affidavit on record. It is contended that there is no church known as St.Mary’s Orthodox Church at Arakkapady Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk and that the real name of the church concerned in W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 10 O.S.No.30/2019 before the 1[st] Additional District Court is St. Mary’s Jacobite Syrian Church and is located at Asamanoor village. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot retitle a Jacobite Church into Orthodox Church even under the 1934 Constitution and forcefully convert the parishioners to Orthodox belief. It is also contended that Additional District Court, North Paravoor which granted the sanction under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is neither a notified court nor a Principal District Court and hence the sanction granted was without jurisdiction. It is contended that the respondents have filed Exts.R13(a) and R13(b) interlocutory applications seeking return of plaint and raising the question of maintainability of suit. It is also submitted that Ext.P3 order cannot be enforced using power or violence. 7. The 9[th] respondent has placed a counter affidavit on record contending that present Vicar of the church is not made a party to this writ petition and that the contesting defendants have challenged the maintainability of the suit before the court below. It is contended that the remedy available to the W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 11 petitioners is to approach the civil court for non compliance of the orders. 8. The 10[th ] respondent has also placed a counter affidavit on record. It is contended that the name of the church is not correctly shown in the writ petition and the correct name of the church is St.Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church, Odakkali. It is contended that in C.R.P.No.177/2020 and connected cases this Court has declared that the Additional District court has no jurisdiction to grant sanction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the contesting respondents have filed application seeking return of plaint. It is also contended that the petitioners have an alternative remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure and hence the present writ petition is not maintainable. - 9.The learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in **Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews II v. State of Kerala** [2007 (3) KLT 349 (SC)], **K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church and others** W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 12 [2017 (15) SCC 333] to contend that the stand of the petitioners in not recognizing the Patriarch as the supreme head of the church is against the directions of the Court. 10.Having considered the contentions advanced, it is pertinent to note the nature and content of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in **K.S.Varghese's** case (cited supra). The Apex Court was considering three civil appeals arising in respect of constituent churches under the Malankara Church. After considering the entire gamut of arguments raised and after hearing the parties concerned, the Apex Court laid down the principles of law and encapsulated them in the directions as contained in paragraph No.184 of the judgment which reads as follows:- - “184. Resultantly, based on the aforesaid findings in the judgment, our main conclusions, inter alia, are as follows : - (i) Malankara Church is Episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of the Parish Churches and shall prevail. (ii) The decree in the 1995 judgment is completely in tune with the judgment. There is no conflict between the judgment and the decree. W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 13 (iii) The 1995 judgment arising out of the representative suit is binding and operates as res judicata with respect to the matters it has decided, in the wake of provisions of Order I Rule 8 and Explanation 6 to S.11 CPC. The same binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who have interest in the Malankara Church. Findings in earlier representative suit, i.e., Samudayam suit are also binding on Parish Churches/Parishioners to the extent issues have been decided. (iv) As the 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the Parish Churches, it is not open to any individual Church, to decide to have their new Constitution like that of 2002 in the so-called exercise of right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It is also not permissible to create a parallel system of management in the churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. (v) The Primate of Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is Catholicos. He enjoys spiritual powers as well, as the Malankara Metropolitan. Malankara Metropolitan has the prime jurisdiction regarding temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of Malankara Church subject to the riders provided in the 1934 Constitution. (vi) Full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point. Consequently, he cannot interfere in the governance of Parish Churches by appointing Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests) etc. and thereby cannot create a parallel system of administration. The appointment has to be made as per the power conferred under the 1934 Constitution on the concerned Diocese, Metropolitan etc. W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 14 (vii) Though it is open to the individual member to leave a Church in exercise of the right not to be a member of any Association and as per Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Parish Assembly of the Church by majority or otherwise cannot decide to move church out of the Malankara Church. Once a trust, is always a trust. (viii) When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of the beneficiaries, it is not open for the beneficiaries, even by a majority, to usurp its property or management. The Malankara Church is in the form of a trust in which, its properties have vested. As per the 1934 Constitution, the Parishioners though may individually leave the Church, they are not permitted to take the movable or immovable properties out of the ambit of 1934 Constitution without the approval of the Church hierarchy. (ix) The spiritual power of Patriarch has been set up by the appellants clearly in order to violate the mandate of the 1995 judgment of this Court which is binding on the Patriarch, Catholicos and all concerned. (x) As per the historical background and the practices which have been noted, the Patriarch is not to exercise the power to appoint Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. Such powers are reserved to other authorities in the Church hierarchy. The Patriarch, thus, cannot be permitted to exercise the power in violation of the 1934 Constitution to create a parallel system of administration of Churches as done in 2002 and onwards. (xi) This Court has held in 1995 that the unilateral exercise of such power by the Patriarch was illegal. The said decision has also been violated. It was only in the alternative this Court held in the 1995 W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 15 judgment that even if he has such power, he could not have exercised the same unilaterally which we have explained in this judgment. (xii) It is open to the Parishioners to believe in the spiritual supremacy of Patriarch or apostolic succession but it cannot be used to appoint Vicars, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc., in contravention of the 1934 Constitution. (xiii) Malankara Church is Episcopal to the extent as provided in the 1934 Constitution, and the right is possessed by the Diocese to settle all internal matters and elect their own Bishops in terms of the said Constitution. (xiv) Appointment of Vicar is a secular matter. There is no violation of any of the rights encompassed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, if the appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests) etc., is made as per the 1934 Constitution. The Patriarch has no power to interfere in such matters under the guise of spiritual supremacy unless the 1934 Constitution is amended in accordance with law. The same is binding on all concerned. (xv) Udampadis do not provide for appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. Even otherwise once the 1934 Constitution has been adopted, the appointment of Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (high priests) etc., is to be as per the 1934 Constitution. It is not within the domain of the spiritual right of the Patriarch to appoint Vicar, Priests etc. The spiritual power also vests in the other functionaries of Malankara Church. (xvi) The functioning of the Church is based upon the division of responsibilities at various levels and cannot be usurped by a single W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 16 individual howsoever high he may be. The division of powers under the 1934 Constitution is for the purpose of effective management of the Church and does not militate against the basic character of the church being Episcopal in nature as mandated thereby. The 1934 Constitution cannot be construed to be opposed to the concept of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch. It cannot as well, be said to be an instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression on the Parishioners who believe in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. (xvii) The Church and the Cemetry cannot be confiscated by anybody. It has to remain with the Parishioners as per the customary rights and nobody can be deprived of the right to enjoy the same as a Parishioner in the Church or to be buried honourably in the cemetery, in case he continues to have faith in the Malankara Church. The property of the Malankara Church in which is also vested the property of the Parish Churches, would remain in trust as it has for the time immemorial for the sake of the beneficiaries and no one can claim to be owners thereof even by majority and usurp the Church and the properties. (xviii) The faith of Church is unnecessarily sought to be divided visa-vis the office of Catholicos and the Patriarch as the common faith of the Church is in Jesus Christ. In fact an effort is being made to take over the management and other powers by raising such disputes as to supremacy of Patriarch or Catholicos to gain control of temporal matters under the garb of spirituality. There is no good or genuine cause for disputes which have been raised. (xix) The authority of Patriarch had never extended to the government of temporalities of the Churches. By questioning the W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 17 action of the Patriarch and his undue interference in the administration of Churches in violation of the 1995 judgment, it cannot be said that the Catholicos faction is guilty of repudiating the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. The Patriarch faction is to be blamed for the situation which has been created post 1995 judgment. The property of the Church is to be managed as per the 1934 Constitution. The judgment of 1995 has not been respected by the Patriarch faction which was binding on all concerned. Filing of Writ Petitions in the High Court by the Catholicos faction was to deter the Patriarch/his representatives to appoint the Vicar etc., in violation of the 1995 judgment of this Court. (xx) The 1934 Constitution is enforceable at present and the plea of its frustration or breach is not available to the Patriarch faction. Once there is Malankara Church, it has to remain as such including the property. No group or denomination by majority or otherwise can take away the management or the property as that would virtually tantamount to illegal interference in the management and illegal usurpation of its properties. It is not open to the beneficiaries even by majority to change the nature of the Church, its property and management. The only method to change management is to amend the Constitution of 1934 in accordance with law. It is not open to the Parish Churches to even frame byelaws in violation of the provisions of the 1934 Constitution. (xxi) The Udampadies of 1890 and 1913 are with respect to administration of Churches and are not documents of the creation of the Trust and are not of utility at present and even otherwise cannot hold the field containing provisions inconsistent with the 1934 Constitution, as per S.132 thereof. The Udampady also W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 18 cannot hold the field in view of the authoritative pronouncements made by this Court in the earlier judgments as to the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution. (xxii) The 1934 Constitution does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or future any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent in the Malankara Church properties and only provides a system of administration and as such is not required to be registered. In any case, the Udampadis for the reasons already cited, cannot supersede the 1934 Constitution only because these are claimed to be registered. (xxiii) In otherwise Episcopal church, whatever autonomy is provided in the Constitution for the Churches is for management and necessary expenditure as provided in S.22 etc. (xxiv) The formation of 2002 Constitution is the result of illegal and void exercise. It cannot be recognized and the parallel system created thereunder for administration of Parish Churches of Malankara Church cannot hold the field. It has to be administered under the 1934 Constitution. (xxv) It was not necessary, after amendment of the plaint in Mannathur Church matter, to adopt the procedure once again of representative suit under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. It remained a representative suit and proper procedure has been followed. It was not necessary to obtain fresh leave. (xxvi) The 1934 Constitution is appropriate and adequate for management of the Parish Churches, as such there is no necessity of framing a scheme under S.92 of the C.P.C. (xxvii) The plea that in face of the prevailing dissension between the two factions and the remote possibility of reconciliation, the religious services may W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 19 be permitted to be conducted by two Vicars of each faith cannot be accepted as that would amount to patronizing parallel systems of administration. (xxviii) Both the factions, for the sake of the sacred religion they profess and to preempt further bickering and unpleasantness precipitating avoidable institutional degeneration, ought to resolve their differences if any, on a common platform if necessary by amending the Constitution further in accordance with law, but by no means, any attempt to create parallel systems of administration of the same Churches resulting in law and order situations leading to even closure of the Churches can be accepted”. 11.Thereafter, in **St.Mary's Orthodox Church v. The State Police Chief** [2019 (3) KLT 419 SC], the Apex Court after referring to the judgment in **K.S. Varghese** (cited supra) held as follows: “There cannot be any violation of the order by any one concerned. Even the State Government cannot act contrary to the judgment and the observations made by this Court and has the duty to ensure that the judgment of the court is implemented forthwith. Any observation made by the High Court contrary to the judgment passed by this Court stands diluted. The State and all parties shall abide by the judgment passed by this Court in totality and cannot solve the matter in any manner different than the judgment passed by this court. No parallel system can be created.” W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 20 12.Therefore, it is clear that in so far as the constituent parish churches of the Malankara Church are concerned, all questions stand settled by the judgment of the Apex Court. A judgment in rem means and includes a declaratory judgment of the status of some subject matter. The judgment is conclusive in respect of the case or class of cases to which it is made applicable in general. “An act or proceeding is in rem when it is done or directed regarding no specific persons and consequently against or concerning all whom it might concern or all the world” (P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon dictionary). 13.It is, therefore, clear that in so far as the constituent parish churches are concerned, the judgment of the Apex Court in **K.S. Varghese** (cited supra) is a judgment in rem. This is amply clarified by the Apex Court in its later judgments and orders including in **St.Mary's Orthodox v. State Police Chief** (cited supra). W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 21 14.The further contention raised by the contesting party respondents that the church in question is not a constituent church also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the St.Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Odakkali is admittedly a constituent church. The contentions of the respondents are to the effect that there has been an ordaining of priests and prelates by the other faction and that the church has, therefore, become a Jacobite church. These aspects of the matter have been given a quietus by the Apex Court. In later SLPs also, the Apex Court has specifically held that all courts and authorities are to act in terms of the judgment in **K.S.Varghese.** 15.The contentions raised by the respondents with regard to the identity of the church are also not tenable in view of the fact that the church in question is included in the list of churches as a constituent parish church of the Malankara Church. If that be so, the contention raised by the respondents that a representative suit has now to be filed and a decree obtained before the directions of the Apex Court in **K.S. Varghese** have W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 22 to be given effect to is completely unsustainable. Though the learned counsel appearing for the 9[th] respondent vehemently contended that the RDO, Dy.S.P. etc. have been wrongly impleaded in the writ petition, I find no such contentions raised in the counter affidavit and no material whatsoever on record in support of such arguments. The Apex Court had specifically directed that all the parish churches of the Malankara Church shall be governed by the directions and the decree of the Apex Court. Such declaration is binding on all courts within the territory of India. The contention that, even if that be so, the decree of the Apex Court can be enforced only through execution proceedings under Order XLV of the CPC is also an untenable contention. The petitioners have established that the church in question is a constituent church of the Malankara Church. In the said view of the matter, the church would be governed by the directions of the Apex Court in **K.S. Varghese** . The State and its machinery is duty bound to afford all necessary assistance for the enforcement of the said decree in terms of Articles 142(1) and 144 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 23 16.In the above factual situation, the contention of the respondents that there has to be a decree drawn up separately in respect of the separate constituent churches and that the decree has to be executed separately is completely unacceptable. This Court in **Mar Miletius Yuhanon** v. **Mar Thomas Dionysious & Ors.** [2020 (4) KHC 14] and in **Marthoman Church, Mulanthuruthy & Ors.** v. **State of Kerala & Ors.** [2020 (3) KHC 448] had considered the question and has held that it is the duty of the police to see that law and order is maintained and that the directions of the Apex Court are given full effect to. It was held that if there is any illegal obstruction to the execution of the decree or the binding directions of the Apex Court, police assistance can be ordered. Where the Apex Court has specifically declared the law and has held that the law laid down is applicable to all constituent churches under the Malankara Orthodax Church, the respondents cannot be heard to raise contentions against the findings already rendered by the Apex Court. W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 24 17.It is true that in a case where there are bona fide disputes with regard to the nature and identity of the property involved, this Court would not be justified in directing police protection to be granted or in attempting to resolve such bona fide disputes in proceedings under Article 226. However, when the objections raised are only for the purpose of frustrating the proper enforcement of binding orders of the Apex Court, this Court would not be powerless to pass appropriate orders to see that the directions of the Apex Court are complied with by all concerned.It is true that in a case where there are bona fide disputes with regard to the nature and identity of the property involved, this Court would not be justified in directing police protection to be granted or in attempting to resolve such bona fide disputes in proceedings under Article 226. However, when the objections raised are only for the purpose of frustrating the proper enforcement of binding orders of the Apex Court, this Court would not be powerless to pass appropriate orders to see that the directions of the Apex Court are complied with by all concerned. 25 W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 - 18.The contention that a contempt petition is pending before the Apex Court is also completely untenable, since the filing of a contempt of court case by some other beneficiaries of the judgment cannot be a ground for the contesting respondents to contend that they will not comply with the directions contained in the judgment. The said contention has also been considered and rejected by this Court in judgment dated 18.05.2020 in W.P.(C) No.4071/2020. 19. I find from the pleadings on record that the party respondents are only attempting to delay the matter and that they have not raised any sustainable contentions which can be considered by this Court in these proceedings. - 20.In the above view of the matter, the official respondents can, by no stretch of imagination, contend that they are powerless to implement the directions of the Apex Court. Suffice it to say that they are duty bound to do so. W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 26 21.In the result, this writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to respondents 1 to 8 to render necessary assistance to the 2[nd] petitioner and other Clergy including the Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates, Metropolitans and the Catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Church appointed under the 1934 Constitution to peacefully enter the 1[st] petitioner Church, its cemetry, Parish hall and kurishadies and to conduct the religious services therein without let or hindrance from the contesting party respondents. Necessary shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **==> picture [28 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 27 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18091/2020** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA NO.AD/YMP/77/2014 DTD. 01/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE DIOCESAN METROPOLITAN, ANGAMALI DIOCESE OF MALANKARA ORTHODOX CHURCH. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/04/2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.39863989 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 06/12/2019 IN I.A.NO.4634/2019 IN O.S.NO.30/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17/12/2019 IN I.A.NO.8996/2019 IN O.S.NO.30/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/01/2020 IN O.S.NO.30/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/01/2020 IN O.S.NO.30/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A.NO.13/2020 IN I.A.NO.8996/2019 IN O.S.NO9.30/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 28 - EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/02/2020 IN I.A.NO.13/2020 IN I.A.NO.8996/2019 IN OS NO.30/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. - EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 02/03/2020 IN O.S.NO.30/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. - EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT, DATED 11/03/2020. - EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 03/12/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.25089/2019 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.320 OF 2020 DATED 18/03/2020 PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18/05/2020 IN WP(C) NO.33316 OF 2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/07/2020 IN CONTEMPT CASE CIVIL NO.777/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 10/08/2020 IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.777/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/08/2020 IN W.A.NO.1046/2020 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 22/06/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.11182/2020. W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 29 - EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 16/07/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.11182/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/08/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.27219/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12/08/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.8528/2019 O THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD. 13/08/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.35613/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.2.2022 FIXING ANNUAL FEAST ON 12TH AND 13TH OF FEBRUARY, 2022. - EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018 IN WPC NO.38458/2018 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT R13 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN I.A 19/2020 IN OS.30/2019 - EXHIBIT R13 B TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN I.A 7358/2019 IN OS.30/2019 EXHIBIT R10(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.30/2019. EXHIBIT R10(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. W.P.(C).No.18091 of 2020 30 ANNEXURE R16(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE MALANKARA CHURCH GIVEN IN ITS OFFICIAL WEBSITE. ANNEXURE R16(B): A TRUE COPY OF THE DESCRIPTION GIVEN ABOUT THE CATHOLICATE OF THE MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE. TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE