IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review of policy decisions is limited; no existing order restrains the State from sending a delegation, and disputes over religious authority must be resolved in substantive proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

The Petitioner, an advocate, and belonging to Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, has filed this Public Interest Litigation being aggrieved by the decision of the State of Kerala to send a delegation to attend the consecration ceremony for Jacobite Syrian Christian Bishop Mor Gregorios Joseph, scheduled to be held on 25 March 2025 at Lebanon. The Petitioner seeks to quash Exhibit-P1 order dated 11 March 2025, issued by the Additional Secretary, General Administration (Protocol) Department, Government of Kerala, granting approval, on the ground that it is issued in breach of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Petitioner has also sought declarations regarding the lack of authority of the Patriarch in Lebanon to conduct the ceremony.

2. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Kerala, through the Chief Secretary. Respondent No. 2 is the Secretary, Home Department, who is in charge of law and order. Respondent No. 3 is the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs. Respondent No. 4 is the person, who is to be ordained in the consecration ceremony on 25 March 2025.

3. To provide a brief factual backdrop to the Malankara Orthodox and Jacobite legal dispute, the representative of Parish Churches in Kerala adopted a constitution for the Malankara Church on 26 December 1934. A detailed decision on the subject came to be rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2017, where the 1934 constitution was reiterated and confirmed. This decision was followed by the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. Contempt petitions and petitions for police protection were filed in this Court, and later orders passed in these proceedings were the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By order of 30 January 2025, the Supreme Court called upon this Court to examine the issues that have been framed in the judgment and the Division Bench is currently hearing this group of petitions.

4. We have heard Mr. Yeshwanth Shenoy, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Advocate General for the Respondent – State.

5. The Petitioner contends that the Patriarch, who will conduct the consecration ceremony scheduled to be held on 25 March 2025 to ordain Respondent No. 4, does not have the power to appoint Vicars, Priest, etc., in violation of the 1934 constitution of the Malankara Church, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Varghese and Others v. St. Peters and St. Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church and Others , (2017) 15 SCC 333 and all the decisions referred to in K.S.Varghese, as reiterated thereafter by the Supreme Court. He has relied upon the decisions in the cases of K.S.Varghese v. St. Peters and Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church and Others, (2017) 15 SCC 333 , Mathews Mar Koorilos v. M. Pappy , (2018) 9 SCC 672 Fr. Issac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa v. St. Marys Orthodox Syrian Church and Others , (2019) 10 SCC 606 , St. Marys Orthodox Church and Others v. State Police Chief and Others , (2020) 18 SCC 329 , K.P. John and Another v. John Puthiyakunnel and Others, Order dated 19 April 2015 in C.A. No.3986-3989 of 2018., K.S. Varghese v. St. Peters and Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church and Others, Order dated 19 June 2020 in M.A. No.1095 – 1097 of 2020., Fr. Thomas Paul Ramban v. S. Suhas, District Collector, Contempt Case (Civil) No.2615/2019., and V.P. Markose & Others v. Rev. Fr. Tijo Kuriakose, W.A. No.945/2023.

6. The learned Advocate General submitted that the Writ Petition is without merit and should not be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as the Petitioner is directly an interested party, a member of the Malankara Church. It is submitted that the declaration sought by the Petitioner regarding the authority of Respondent No.4 is a matter of dispute on merits between the parties who are not even joined in the Petition, and such a declaration cannot be given in a PIL. He submitted that various facets and intricacies have to be dec