High Court cannot direct civil takeover of churches in factional disputes; 1934 Constitution binds parish management; police protection for services, not possession enforcement.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. These Contempt Appeals filed under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, arise out of the order dated 30.08.2024 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Con. Case (C)Nos.1761 of 2023, 1803 of 2023, 1824 of 2023, 299 of 2024, 329 of 2024 and 330 of 2024. The said contempt cases were filed, invoking the provisions under Section 12 of the and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging willful disobedience of the judgment dated 31.01.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.25645 of 2019 and connected matters. By the order dated 30.08.2024 in Con. Case (C)No.1761 of 2023 and connected matters, the learned Single Judge issued the following directions:

“(i) The District Collector, Ernakulam, is suo motu impleaded as the additional respondent in Con. Case (C)No.1761 of 2023. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the additional respondent.

(ii) The District Collector, Ernakulam, shall take over possession of the St.Mary's Orthodox Church, Odakkali, St.John's Besphage Orthodox Syrian Church, Pulinthanam and St.Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church, Mazhuvannoor.

(iii) The District Collector, Palakkad, shall take over possession of the St.Mary's Orthodox Church, Mangalam Dam, St.Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Erickinchira and St.Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church, Cherukunnam.

(iv) The District Collectors shall file reports regarding the takeover before this Court by the next posting date.

(v) The District Police Chiefs of Ernakulam and Palakkad shall deploy sufficient police personnel to aid the District Collectors.”

2. The writ petitions were filed seeking direction to the Inspector of Police in the respective police stations and also other officials to prevent the appellants in Con.App.(C)Nos.8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 2024 and their men from violating the law as declared by the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter’s and St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church, (2017) 15 SCC 333and ensure that the writ petitioners, Priests, Vicars, Diocesan Metropolitan, Malankara Metropolitan, etc., are not prevented from conducting religious services in accordance with the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Church (for brevity, ‘the 1934 Constitution’).

3. The writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by issuing similar directions. The Inspector of Policeconcerned was directed to render necessary assistance to the writ petitioners, Priests, Vicars, Diocesan Metropolitan, Malankara Metropolitan, etc., to peacefully enter the respective Churches in accordance with the 1934 Constitution and to conduct the religious services without let or hindrance from the party respondents in the writ petition and their men. A time limit was also fixed in the judgment. Alleging that the said directions were not complied with, the writ petitioners filed the contempt of court cases. In the contempt cases, the learned Single Judge issued various directions to ensure compliance of the judgments in the writ petitions. But the directions remained unenforced. The official respondents resorted to an excuse that any attempt by the writ petitioners to enter the Churches with police assistance would be thwarted by the appellants and their men. The learned Additional Advocate General took a stand that such an attempt would lead the law and order into dangerous proportions and even result in loss of human lives. After considering the submissions and taking into account the facts and circumstances borne out from the materials on record, the learned Single Judge issued the impugned order dated 30.08.2024, directing the DistrictCollectors of Ernakulam and Palakkad to take over possession of the respective Churches.

4. On 25.09.2024, when Con.App.(C)No.8 of 2024 came up for admission, the Division Bench granted an interim stay for a period of 10 days, which has been extended for a further period of two weeks. On 01.10.2024, the said interim order was extended by two weeks in Con.App.(C)No.8 of 2024 and a