The ruling clarifies the power of the court to enforce constitutional rights and maintain order, despite ongoing civil disputes regarding church authority.

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition was filed for police protection to conduct religious services by the second petitioner, Fr. Gheevarghese Kappil in respect of St.George Orthodox Syrian Church, Mudavoor. The petitioners claim that the second petitioner is the vicar, duly appointed in accordance with the 1934 Malankara Church Constitution and obstructions have been caused by the party respondents in conduct of religious services.

2. The first petitioner is the Church. Admittedly, the Church is a constituent Parish Church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (hereinafter referred to as the “Malankara Church”). This writ petition is one of the series of writ petitions filed for police protection. The dispute is between two factions of the Malankara Church, one representing Patriarch faction and the other representing Catholic faction. The petitioners in this writ petition represent the Catholic faction.

3. The dispute had a chequered history. The dispute is mainly in regard to the control and power of Antioch. The patriarch faction claims spiritual and temporal supremacy of Patriarch of Antioch over the Malankara Church. On the other hand, the Catholics only approved the spiritual supremacy of Patriarch of Antioch. Catholics consider temporal supremacy of the Malankara Metropolitan over the Church.

4. The dispute has been perpetually settled by the Apex Court inK.S.Varghese & Ors. Vs. St. Peter’s & St.Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church & Ors. [ (2017) 15 SCC 333 ]. The Apex Court held that Patriarch of Antioch cannot exercise power to appoint Vicars, Priests, Deacons, Prelates etc. The Malankara Church will have to be administered in accordance with the 1934 Constitution prepared by the Malankara Syrian Christian Associaton on 26/12/1934 for the management and administration of Malankara Church, its Parish Churches, Institutions etc.

5. The second petitioner claims to have been appointed as Vicar by the Diocesan Metropolitan of Diocesan of Angamaly by Ext.P3. The petitioners’ case is that respondents 9 to 18 and others squatted inside the first petitioner church and thereby prevented the second petitioner and others from entering into the Church to render religious services.

6. Respondent Nos.9, 11 and 12 filed counter affidavit in this matter. Respondent No.9 claimed that he was appointed as the Vicar in accordance with the 1934 Constitution by the lawful Metropolitan of Angamaly Diocesan. According to him, the administration of the Church is under his control.

7. The writ petition is filed for police protection. The petitioners’ claim is based on the judgment of the Apex Court in K.S.Varghese case (supra). If there are rival claims among the followers of 1934 Constitution, it is not proper for this Court to decide such rival claims in this writ petition. It is for the civil court to decide such disputes. However, if a plea has been raised as a camouflage to project a civil dispute, the Court has to look into such plea and decide whether such plea has been raised with bona fides or not. If there is any bona fide dispute, the Court will have to relegate the parties to civil court.

8. When there is a crystalized right declared by the Apex Court, and the parties who are bound to obey the declaration of law by the Apex Court wriggles out from their obligation and violate the directions, this Court cannot remain powerless to act upon the request of the decree holder to ensure justice. In that background, this Court has to find out whether the plea raised by the contesting respondents that the ninth respondent has been appointed as per the 1934 Constitution is genuine or not. The appointment of the second respondent as revealed from the documents produced before this Court was based on the 1934 Constitution. On the other hand, no documents have been produced before this Court by the ninth respondent to claim that he has been appointed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution by an authority who is competent to appoint him under the 1934 Const