'Whether Mandatory Sacramental Confessions Before Priests In Churches Violates Article 21 & 25 Of Constitution': Supreme Court Issues Notice

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a petition challenging the alleged practice of mandatory sacramental confessions in the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.

The Bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde issued notice notice on petition filed by Mathew Mathachan and CV Jose who seek protection of their rights as well as the rights of similarly placed persons within the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.

Initially the Court has asked Senior Advocate Sanjay Parekh to approach the High Court.

Parikh then submitted that the Supreme Court had by virtue of its consequential orders dated 06.09.2019 following the K.S.Varghese Judgment in 2017, prohibited the all civil Courts and High Court in Kerala from passing any orders in violation of the mandate in K.S.Varghese judgment.

The question of law in the petition is "Whether mandatory requirement of confession can be imposed on a believer as per sections 7 and 8 of the 1934 Constitution of the Kerala Malankara church and are protected under Article 21 and 25 of the Constitution as an essential aspect?"

As per this religious practice, a member of the church has to undergo 'Sacramental Confession' before a priest. Such a practice, it was stated, was requisite to relieve oneself of his sin and was a condition precedent for fulfilling the temporal and spiritual needs of being a Christian. A person who does not undergo such a procedure would be denied the benefit of such services from the Church.

The petitioners contended that under the garb of some Rules, the Church is forcing the members to 'mandatorily confess' and 'mandatorily make payment of monies/ dues', failing which their names are struck off from their respective parishes.

The petition states that the said practices indulged in by the Church are of a public nature, affecting human dignity and liberty of thought and that the believers have been forced to remain meek and quiet out of fear of removal from parish membership, social ostracisation etc.

The said writ petition inter-alia challenging the compulsory nature of Confessions or Payment of Monies/ Dues has been filed by Sanand Ramakrishnan, Advocate-on-Record. 

The petition highlights that forced, mandatory and compulsory confession (not being voluntary) from men and women is causing severe problems including the exploitation of women and blackmailing. 

If a person has not confessed, then that person's name will be struck off from the parish register and he/she is barred from all activities of the church.If that concerned person wants to get married, he/ she will have to mandatorily confess before his permitted to marry, failing which the Vicar of the Parish will not recognize him as the member of the Church as his membership in view of the non-performance of confession.

In 2018 Kerala High Court had dismissed a petition seeking to declare the practice of 'Sacramental Confession' to be unconstitutional.(C.S Chacko Vs Union of India). 

The bench said the practice of 'Sacramental Confession' formed one of the quintessential practices of following Christianity. The apprehension of the petitioner that even though by remaining as a Christian not adhering to such a practice would disable him from receiving temporal and spiritual services cannot be a said to be any violation of his fundamental right.

The court said by choosing to remain with a particular faith or religious belief, one had to adhere to the norms prescribed under its religious tenets. The petitioner embraced Christianity voluntarily being fully aware of the factum that by remaining to be one such, he had to strictly follow its religious practices and etiquettes which may include 'Sacramental Confession'. If the petitioner chooses to disregard any such practice, he is voluntarily giving up or ceases to be a member of such religious faith.

The approach of the petitioner to remain as a Christian and his apprehension that by not undergoing 'Sacramental Confession'  would disable him from receiving temporal and spiritual services of the church cannot be resolved through a proceeding under Article 226, the court said.