Kerala Church Feud : Supreme Court Says Jacobite Members Are In Contempt, Asks Them To Hand Over 6 Churches To Malankara Group

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (December 3) observed that the members of the Jacobite Syrian Church are in contempt for "wilfully disobeying" the judgments regarding the entrustment of Churches to the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church as per the 1934 Constitution.

The Court directed the members of the Jacobite church to hand over the administration of three churches each in Ernakulam and Palakkad districts in Kerala to the Malankara faction and file an affidavit to that effect. Failure to do so will result in initiation of contempt proceedings, the Court warned.

At the same time, the Court also directed the Malankara faction to ensure that the common amenities in these churches, such as burial grounds, schools, hospitals etc. can be enjoyed by the Jacobite faction in conformity with the 1934 Constitution. The Court posted these matters for further consideration on December 17

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed by the officials of the Kerala Government, Kerala Police and also certain members of the Jacobite Church against the directions passed by the Kerala High Court on October 17 to the District Collectors of Palakkad and Ernakulam to take possession of six churches under the control of the Jacobite faction.

The impugned directions of the High Court were passed in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction after the Malankara faction complained that the Jacobite faction was obstructing the implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment recognizing their rights and that the State authorities were not taking any action. 

During the hearing in the Supreme Court, the bench said that there was already a decision by the Supreme Court in 2017 conclusively determining the issues and the only issue remaining was the implementation of the judgment.

"Mr.Divan, you are in contempt. Is it open for you to raise all these arguments?" Justice Bhuyan asked Senior Advocate Shyam Divan (for the Jacobite group) when he argued that a rival faction cannot simply walk into a church which was developed and maintained by the other group.

"We are only concerned with the administration of churches as per the 1934 Constitution. If you want a hearing before us, first comply with the judgment, hand over the keys," Justice Kant told the Jacobite group. At the same time, Justice Kant told the Malankara group that the use of amenities like burial grounds will be kept open to the other faction.

"You give us in writing, as far as burial grounds are concerned, schools, hospitals, all those should be open to everyone. That part you have to take care of. You give us one writing all these common public facilities will be open to be availed them by also. Subject to these conditions, they have to hand over," Justice Kant told the Malankara group. Senior Advocates CU Singh, KK Venugopal and Krishnan Venugopal appeared for the Malankara Orthodox faction.

Singh submitted that availing of such services should be in conformity with the 1934 Constitution otherwise the other group would insist that their priests can do the services.

The bench dictated the following order after the brief hearing. 

"We are satisfied that the private petitioners who have preferred SLPs against the judgment of the High Court dated 17.10.2024 are undoubtedly in contempt for having wilfully disobeyed the decisions of this court in KS Varghese v St Peter's & Paul's Syrian Church( 2017) and St Marys' Orthodox Church(2020) to the extent it pertains to the entrustment of administration of the Churches as per 1934 Constitution. Consequently, we direct these petitioners to hand over the administration (only) and submit a compliance affidavit failing which necessary consequences shall follow.

The respondents(Churches and its office bearers) shall also give an undertaking in writing to the effect that all public facilities in the church's compound including burial grounds, schools, hospitals, etc., shall continue to be availed by all members of the community including Catholics in conformity with the 1934 Constitution but without insisting for the pledge of allegiance to that Constitution for availing such services and subject to the directions as may be issued by this court from time to time. The exemption granted to the officers of the Government of Kerala on November 24 shall continue. Post after two weeks."

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar for the State submitted some of the issues raised in the Sabarimala reference pending before the 9-judge bench may arise in the present case as well. KK Venugopal refuted this submission by terming it as a "red-herring argument."

Kumar also requested that the matter be kept on January 3, after Christmas time. The bench declined, saying it would like to see how the situation progressed. "We are hopeful all of you will celebrate Christmas without any problem. Let us see if things go smoothly so that we can resolve before Christmas," Justice Kant said.

The High Court's order related to St.Mary's Orthodox Church, Odakkal, St.John's Besphage Orthodox Syrian Church, Pulinthanam and St.Thomas Orthodox Church, Mazhuvannoor in Ernakulam District and St.Mary's Orthodox Church, Mangalam Dam, St.Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Erickinchira and St.Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church, Cherukunnam in Palakkad District.

During the hearing, the Malankara faction argued that the State was supporting the Jacobite faction on political grounds. When Justice Kant said that the intervention by the State in religious affairs should be the "last resort", Krishnan Venugopal said, "the problem is the State is intervening on political grounds."

KK Venugopal submitted that the Jacobite faction has been in contempt for a long time. "We are clear that the 2017 judgment has to be given effect to. If the Supreme Court judgment cannot be followed, where will the common citizens go?" Justice Kant wondered.

Case : V Venu and others v. St.Mary's Orthodox Church (Odakkal Palli) | SLP(C) No. 26064-26069/2024