Supreme Court Turns Down Cardinal George Alencherry's Plea For Exemption From Personal Appearance Before Magistrate In Land Scam Case

The submission was advanced by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra on behalf of the Cardinal before a Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Dipankar Datta.

"The matter is kept today because the date is coming up before the Trial Court on the 14th. That was the whole purpose...All I am saying is let appearance not be insisted upon...My difficulty is only this, I represent this very senior gentleman, he is a Cardinal, milords. Let the man not have to appear in person tomorrow because there are sensitivities involved....", Luthra argued.

Raising objections, Senior Advocate Jayant Muthuraj and Advocate Raghenth Basant, appearing for the complainants, pointed out that the High Court has passed an order on November 9 declining the very same request made by the Cardinal.

"The High Court recorded before the law, all are equal. You cannot have special treatment. An elaborately detailed order was passed. That order was not challenged, without challenging he wants this now", Muthuraj argued.

Basant submitted that the request for exemption was sought by the Cardinal by suppressing the High Court's judgment dated November 9.

"One sentence more, if I could add, on November 9, the Kerala High Court had said that the law does not differentiate between a Cardinal and an ordinary citizen. You appear once and take leave, now without mentioning such an order is there, telling your Lordships this is...They can challenge that order in an SLP, they don't inform your Lordships of that order, and say please stay the order, that's unfair, with the utmost respect", Basant said.

"If such a (High Court) order is passed, we would not like to pass any order. As such we are not taking up the matter today", the Bench said.

At this juncture, Luthra said that he was not aware of the said judgment of the High court.

"If that's the case, it would be inappropriate on my part making for this request, without challenging that order. We will take steps."

The Bench was considering Special Leave Petition filed by the Cardinal against the judgment delivered in August 2021 which refused to quash the criminal cases against Cardinal Mar George Alencherry over the sale of properties belonging to Ernakulam-Angamalay Archdiocese.

Apart from the Cardinal, the Eparchy of Bathery and the Catholic Diocese of Thamarassery have also filed SLPs challenging the observations made by the High Court that Bishops have no power to alienate church assets.

As the hearing progressed today, Senior CU Singh, appearing for the Eparchy of Bathery, requested that the High Court be restrained from passing further orders while the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. "My only request is that the Ld. Judge should not be allowed to pass further orders, which he is now doing." Joining this request, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for another diocese, said that the single bench has been passing orders in a disposed of matter.

"It will be difficult to pass a stay on the interim order", Justice Roy said.

"This request is made every time", Basant pointed out.

"We will have to go into some detail on this matter. It will not be possible for us today", Justice Roy said while adding that it is an Ad-Hoc Bench.

A single bench of the High Court had passed the directions on October 27 while monitoring the investigation of land scam allegations against Cardinal George Alencherry, the Major Archbishop of Syro-Malabar Church. The bench also requested the Central Government to consider framing a law to regulate religious organizations.

Earlier, while refusing to quash the criminal cases against the Cardinal in 2021, the single bench of Justice P Somarajan had observed that Bishops have no power to alienate church assets. Challenging the findings, a few other dioceses approached the Supreme Court.

The matter will next taken up on January 10.

Case Title: Eparchy of Bathery vs. State of Kerala and Ors - SLP(Crl) No. 1487-1493/2022, Catholic Diocese of Thamarassery vs. State of Kerala and Ors | Diary No. 7364/2022