In the year 1880, the Maha Raja of Travancore had described the “Syrian Christians” as “the very embodiment of antiquity and historical association, and the vary model of contentment, peacefulness and loyalty.” Today, as even on earlier occasion, they are in court. The petitioners have filed this petition with the prayer that the State and its authorities be directed to give effective and adequate police protection so as to enable the first petitioner “to exercise his rights, duties and privileges as the Catholicos” – cum- Malankara Metropolitan of Malankara Church with respect to the parishes mentioned in Ext. P4 and institutions of the Malankara Church without any threat or obstruction from respondents.. or their agents or servants in any manner.” The suggestion of the Bench for an amicable settlement having not been found to be feasible, we have heard the cases. Learned Counsel for the parties has broadly referred to the pleadings in O. P. No. 22946 of 2002. These may be briefly noticed.

2. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is the second largest Christian community in Kerala. There were disputes amongst the members of the community. There were several rounds of litigation. Each time the Apex Court decided the dispute. The decisions are reported in Edgar Sammut v. Strickland (AIR 1939 PC 39), Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma (AIR 1995 Sc 2001), Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews (AIR 1996 SC 3121) and Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews (AIR 1997 SC 1035.) Suit no. 4 of 1979 was one of the many suits, which have been filed in court. In the year 1980, a learned single judge had dismissed the suit. However the division bench had accepted the appeal and decreed the suit.

3. The fifth respondent in the present proceedings was a defendant in the suit. He challenged the judgment of the High Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4958-60 of 1990. The Supreme Court decided the matter vide its judgments reported in AIR 1995 SC 2001 and AIR 1997 SC 1034. The judgment of the High Court was partly modified.

4. The decision did not end the dispute. The fifth respondent and others contended, “The first petitioner was not the Malankara Association”. Rasing this contention, they filed a petition before this Honourable Court Order XLV Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code for transmitting the decree of the Supreme Court to the executing court”. This petition was disposed of vide order dated April 6, 2001. It was held that the first petitioner was not the Malankara Metropolitan. He challenged the order by filing S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7593 of2001. It was decided vide order dated Nov. 28, the members of the Malankara Association and Managing Committee shall be held under the observation of Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. V.S. Malimath (Retd). It was also ordered that the said association would decide as to whether or not the first petitioner was the Malankara Metropolitan.

In pursuance to the decision, a meeting of the Malankara Association was held art Parumala on March 20, 2002 in the presence of the ‘ Observer’. The first petitioner was approved as the Malankara Metropolitan by “an overwhelming majority.” The new Managing Committee of the Association was also elected. The ‘Observer’ filed his report a list of the Parish Churches of the Malankara Church was also produced. Vide order dated July 12, 2002; their Lordships approved the report of the Observer. A copy has been produced as Ext. P3. Their Lordships were pleased to observe that the election was final and binding. It shall not be “open to challenge in any court or other forum”.

The petitioners allege, “The Malankara Church at present comprised of 1662 Parish Churches spread all over India. A complete list has been produced as Ext. P4. It is alleged that “the first petitioner has the exclusive right and control over the Parish Churches mentioned in Ext. P4.” And that this is fortified by the approval of the report of the observe