'A Tragedy Of Mammoth Proportions': Kerala High Court Expresses Distress In Church Feud Case

Dissatisfied by the developments ensuing in the never-ending dispute between the Orthodox and Jacobite factions in the State, the Kerala High Court made significant observations in the matter on Tuesday.

Calling the entire matter a 'tragedy', Justice Devan Ramachandran orally remarked:

"The problem here is that blood is being shed at the cost of faith. Is it worth it? Who benefits from this? I have to say, this is a tragedy of mammoth proportions and it will take a dangerous turn if we don't interfere now."

Upon noticing that the words of the Court were being misinterpreted amongst the public and aspersions were being cast upon the bench, the Court said:

"Nobody seems to understand what the Court wants. I have made it explicitly clear in my previous order that I would be the last person to send the police into a Church. I am not against anyone professing their faith, contrary to what is being circulated in the public. I am merely upholding the Constitution and Rule of law in the State. All I'm trying to do is find peace between the factions."

More importantly, the Court emphasised that it did not wish to see the Churches shut down and wanted everything to work harmoniously. 

"People shouldn't be vouching for the Churches to be shut down. Even God would not want the Churches to remain closed." 

The Court added that although several attempts were being made to make the bench recuse from the case, it would not recuse no matter how strong the provocation is. 

It also recorded its disappointment over the inaction of the respondents to inform the Court regarding the updates from the meeting they had convened in this regard, and their failure to take any action in the spirit of its previous order. It was also brought to the attention of the Court that although attempts of reconciliation were made, there was no fructification of the same so far.  

Binding Effect of K.S Varghese Judgment:

The Court stood firm in its stand that the matters arising from the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church row were well settled in the landmark decision of the Apex Court in K.S Varghese & Ors v St. Peter's & St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox and Ors [2017(3) KLT 261 SC].

In the previous proceedings, several arguments were raised on the premise that the Apex Court decision was bad in law, and some to the effect that it was only binding upon three Churches. 

Clarifying once again, the Court repeated:

"How can one possibly challenge a decision of the Supreme Court before a single bench of the High Court?  A clear reading of paragraph 288 of the judgment where it is explicitly mentioned that the decision is binding on all the Malankara Churches would reveal that it is binding on everyone equally. It is tragic that people think that judgment is not binding on them and proceed to flout it as if faith takes precedence over law."

The Court added that the factions have not comprehended the intention of the Court and that they did not want the dispute to end:

"I can only hope that the people understand the true spirit of the K.S Varghese judgment, which is to prevent institutional degeneration and parallel administration. This is a kind of status-quoism; nobody wants it to change."  

Maintainability: 

Advocate Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud appeared on behalf of an intervening respondent and challenged the maintainability of the petition. His contention was based on the fact that the petitioners were moving a petition for the execution of a decree which could have been moved before a civil court. 

It was argued that when there was a clear alternative remedy available to the petitioners, they should have exhausted it first before approaching a writ court. 

Similarly, it was put forth that a writ can only be maintained when there is a violation of Fundamental Rights, principles of natural justice or excessive use of authority. At the most, the petitioners can only allege a violation of Fundamental Rights; but even for that case to stand, the violation should have been caused by the State.

However, in the case at hand, the petitioners moved against a Church, which is not the State. As such, it was argued that the petition was not maintainable.

To this, the Bench responded that when the Supreme Court has declared under Article 144 that only a vicar of a particular Constitution can be the head of a Church, and someone obstructs such a direction and creates a law and order situation in that pursuit, it cannot stand and watch on silence:

"I think I'm obligated to hear this matter. I cannot permit a Supreme Court order to be violated. When people are creating a law and order issue against the K.S Varghese judgment, the High court cannot stay a mute spectator. Somebody has to put an end to this litigative adventurism."  

Background:

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking police protection fearing the takeover of six Orthodox churches by the Orthodox faction, presently under the control of the Jacobite faction. 

The court pointed out that the apex court in its final verdict in 2017, gave the Orthodox faction the right to administer 1,100 churches and parishes under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and said there was no ground for the Jacobites to claim any of the churches.

Also Read: 'This Adventurism In Litigation Has To Stop Now': Kerala High Court Lashes Out In Church Feud Case

Case Title: St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church v. State of Kerala