Malankara Church Dispute | Kerala High Court Refuses To Stop State Delegation Trip To Jacobite Catholicos Consecration At Lebanon

The Court was hearing a PIL challenging the official delegate visit using public money. The petitioner contended that the appointment of Mar Gregorius is in violation of the Apex Court judgment in KS Varghese & Ors v St. Peter's & St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox and Ors (2017), which finally settled the dispute between the Malankara Orthodox Church and its dissident Patriarch group.

"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," the Court said.

The appointment of Joseph Mar Gregorius as the new Catholicos of India was made by the Supreme Head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem II. This would mean that the Jacobite Church would get a new regional head.

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church has two factions – the majority Orthodox, who have their headquarters in Kottayam, and the Jacobites, who consider the Patriarch of Antioch in Beirut as their supreme leader. The community first split into Orthodox and Jacobite in 1912, but came together in Kottayam for a brief period between 1958 and 1970, following a Supreme Court ruling. Since 1970, they have been at war over church control. After decades spent in the trial, the Apex court in KS Varghese, gave the Orthodox faction the right to administer 1,100 churches and parishes under the Malankara Church and said there was no ground for the Jacobites to claim any of the churches. Consequent to this, the Malankara Orthodox faction has been taking control over churches hitherto run by the Jacobite faction.

In KS Varghese, the Apex Court declared the validity of the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church. The Apex Court had held that full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached a vanishing point. Consequently, it was held that the Patriarch 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. It was ruled that appointments have to be made as per the power conferred under the 1934 Constitution only.

The plea was moved by Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy. Disposing of the same, the Court said,

"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."

Case Title: Gilbert Cheran v State of Kerala

Case No: WP (PIL)1 OF 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 199

Click here to read/download Order