IMPORTANT POINTS
The constitutional court alone has the power to enforce the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court when there is a blatant breach of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court resulting in it as a law and order issue. The judgment in K.S.Varghese case (supra) was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3.7.2017. The fourth petitioner has been appointed as a Vicar by the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kochi Diocese. The petitioners 5 to 7 are the Assistant Vicars appointed by the same authority. The party respondents have no case that they have been appointed as per the 1934 Constitution. Their case is that when a scheme has been framed pursuant to the decree of the civil court, any further change can only be effected by varying the scheme and the Constitution thereon.

JUDGMENT :

The perpetual fight for managing the affairs of the Malankara Church between the Patriarch faction and Catholicos faction for control of spiritual and temporal management of affairs of the Parish Church has come to an end by the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Varghese & Ors. Vs. St. Peter’s & St.Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church & Ors. [(2017) 15 SCC 333]. Though the legal battle is over, its repercussion still resonates in the corridors of High Court and various civil courts in the State making it a more law and order issue rather than a legal dispute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in clear terms had held that Malankara Church is episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in 1934 Malankara Church Constitution (hereinafter referred to as the “1934 Constitution”) and the said Constitution fully governs the affairs of the Parish Churches.

2. The two factions, Patriarch and Catholicos are bound by the declaration of law in K.S.Varghese case (supra). It appears that the Patriarch faction is not able to relish with the declaration and could not come in terms with reality. The Vicars of the Church under their control were not appointed in terms of the 1934 Constitution. They seek shelter to protect their control over the Parish Church as though the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered to maintain status quo ante in respect of the church under their control and administration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not do so. The plea to maintain status quo ante was also appealed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but it was turned down. The Parish Churches in the State appears to be under the control of both the factions. The dispute is mainly in respect of the Parish Church hitherto administered and managed by the Patriarch faction, and the administration was not by following the 1934 Constitution. The declaration in Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment is in a representative suit. In K.S.Varghese case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the representative character of the suit held that the judgment would bind all Parish Churches under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Sabha. This Court is called upon to decide a dispute in the aforesaid background, in a writ petition for a mandamus, to accord police protection in the light of the declaration of law and direction in K.S.Varghese case (supra).

3. The present writ petition pertains to the affairs of Mulanthuruthy Marthoma Church in Mulanthuruthy Village. Admittedly, the Church is a part of the Malankara Church. There arose a dispute regarding the administration of the affairs of the Church. A scheme suit was filed as O.S.No.1/1124 (ME). A preliminary decree was passed on 11.12.1959 allowing prayer for framing scheme. Pursuant to the preliminary decree, a final decree was passed approving the scheme. Accordingly, the scheme was framed, produced as Ext.P8. Based on K.S.Varghese case (supra), an application was filed to pass a supplementary decree to substitute the scheme by the 1934 Constitution. The District Court allowed the prayer as per Order in I.A. No.624/2007 on 25.10.2019. It appears that a challenge is made against this Order before this Court. The application was mainly resisted by rival Patriarch faction contending that more than 90% of the persons in the Church belonged to Patriarch faction and Bishops of a microscopic minority belonging to Catholicos faction cannot be accepted. This objection was overruled by the District Court relying upon K.S.Varghese case.

4. The resistance of the police protection prayers was on the ground that writ of mandamus cannot be used to enforce the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court so also to enforce supplementary decree passed by the District Court.

5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.Sreekumar appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel Shri K.Vishwanathan appearing for the contesting respondents and Shri K.V.Sohan the learned State Attorney.

6. The petitioners' prayer is mainly to accord police protection to the