SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J.
S T.Peter's And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Additional Chief Secretary To The Government, Home (Ssa) Department) And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 11776 OF 2021
Decided On : 20-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.Sreekumar (Sr.), Roshen.D.Alexander, Tina Alex Thomas, Harimohan
For the Respondent:Sri. V.Manu, Binoy Vasudevan, K.Shibili Naha, Santheep Ankarath, Shri.P.Vijayakumar, Asg Of India, A.Lowsy, Manu S., Asg Of India, Shri.K.R.Rajkumar, C.G.C., J.Ramkumar, Advocate General Office Kerala Sri. K.Gopalakrishna, Kurup, Advocate General, Shri.T.B.Hood, Spl.G.P. To A.G.

The court upheld that while Local Self Government Institutions can approve religious constructions, essential sovereign functions like maintaining public order cannot be delegated from the District Administration.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 25, 26, 243G, and 243W - Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Delegation of powers - The petitioners challenged amendments allowing Local Self Government Institutions to approve religious constructions without District Collector's consent, arguing it undermines public order and violates constitutional provisions. (Paras 1-25)

(B) Sovereign functions - The court held that gathering intelligence and maintaining public order are sovereign functions that cannot be delegated to Local Self Government Institutions, reaffirming the necessity of District Administration's role in such matters. (Paras 20-24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, representing the Orthodox faction of the Malankara Church, contested amendments permitting the Jacobite faction to construct a church without prior approval from the District Collector, alleging violations of communal harmony and public order.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the amendments did not delegate essential sovereign functions and upheld the legality of the Local Self Government Institutions' role in approving religious constructions.

Issues: The main issues included whether the amendments violated the requirement for District Collector's approval and whether essential sovereign functions could be delegated to Local Self Government Institutions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the amendments allowed Local Self Government Institutions to approve constructions, they did not undermine the District Administration's responsibility for maintaining public order and intelligence gathering.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

The 1st petitioner is a Constituent Parish Church of the Malankara Orthodox Church administered under the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church and the 2nd petitioner is the Vicar of the 1st petitioner Church. The petitioners represent the Orthodox (Catholicos) faction of the Malankara Church and the party respondents represent the Patriarch (Jacobite) faction. There were perpetual fight for managing the affairs of the Malankara Church between the two factions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Varghese K.S. and Others v. St. Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church and Others [(2017) 15 SCC 333: 2017 (3) KLT 261: 2017 KHC 6531], held that all churches under the Malankara Syrian Church will have to be administered in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. It is stated by the petitioners that although the judgment in Varghese K.S. (supra) would govern the parties with respect to the Malankara Church, the Patriarch faction violated the directions therein and denied the rights of Vicars and others appointed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution to carry out religious services. This led to disturbance and disharmony among parishioners, prompting the filing of petitions for police protection. This Court, in Ext. P3 judgment, observing that in light of the fact that the Patriarch faction is bent on flouting the rule of law and creating an atmosphere of hostility and animosity among parishioners, directed the police to afford protection to the Vicars and Clergies appointed under the 1934 Constitution to conduct religious services in the St. Peter's and St. Paul's Orthodox Syrian Church, Chalisserry.

2. While so, the predecessor of the 2nd petitioner got information that the Jacobite faction is going to construct a new religious place/church in a property adjacent to St. Peter's and St. Paul's Orthodox Syrian Church, Chalisserry and its parish hall and quarters. On enquiry, it was revealed that the 5th respondent had submitted an application before the 3rd respondent, Chalissery panchayat for the construction of a church on behalf of the Jacobite faction under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 and the panchayat has, by Ext. P4, resolved that since the application pertains to church/religious place, permission of the District Collector is required and therefore, the panchayat committee has entrusted the 4th respondent, the Secretary to make necessary application for the same.

3. On coming to know about the said decision, the predecessor of the 2nd petitioner submitted Ext. P5 complaint before the District Collector with respect to the proposed construction of the new church adjacent to the 1st petitioner Church. Ext. P5 complaint was made over to the 4th respondent Secretary along with Ext. P6 covering letter by the District Collector. While so, the 4th respondent issued Ext. P7 letter stating that though, 5th respondent's application seeking permission for construction of the church was forwarded for the permission of the District Collector, it was returned by the District Collector in view of the directions in G.O (P) No.19/2021/Home dated 14.02.2021 (Ext. P11) holding that as per the amendment brought in by the said Government Order to Ext. P10, the respective Local Self-Government Institutions could grant building permit for the religious institutions and that Ext. P8 permit dated 08.03.2021 was also issued to the 5th respondent for the construction of the church, in accordance with law, after site inspection and examining the files. Further, it was informed that, the Station House Officer, Chalisserry was requested to submit a report regarding the law and order issue referred to in Ext. P5 complaint.

4. According to the petitioners, by virtue of Entry-1, List-ll of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, the power to promulgate laws under Entry-1 (public order) vests with the respective State Governments. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, had on 23.06.2008, issued Ext. P9 'Guideli

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top