Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 63148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 39181 OF 2022 | WP(C) NO. 39197 OF 2022 | WP(C) NO. 41859 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY, S. RAJEEV, JOHN VARGHESE, JIMMY JOHN VELLANIKARAN, N.A. SHAFEEK, JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN, SREENIVASAN K., SONU AUGUSTINE, S.A. ANAND, ISSAC M. PERUMPILLIL, SABU PULLAN, SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY, SRI.K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For the Respondents: MEENA.A., P. RAMAKRISHNAN, PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN, T.C. KRISHNA, C. ANIL KUMAR, ASHA K. SHENOY, PRATAP ABRAHAM, VARGHESE VINOD RAVINDRANATH, K.C. KIRAN, M.R. MINI, M.DEVESH, ASHWIN SATHYANATH, ANISH ANTONY, ANATHAZHATH, SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY, SRI.K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Writ jurisdiction cannot address civil disputes concerning religious practices; issues must be resolved in civil courts.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ petitions seeking police protection for attending Unified Synodal Mass - Petitioners, parishioners of St. Mary’s Cathedral Basilica, faced obstruction from certain groups opposing the Synodal Mass; police failed to provide protection - Court held that disputes involving religious practices are civil in nature and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 30, 32, 34)
(B) Jurisdiction of Writ Courts - The court emphasized that matters concerning day-to-day rituals in places of worship raise disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ petitions. (Paras 34, 36)
(C) Canon Law - Issues regarding the validity of the Synod's decisions and adherence to procedural formalities were raised, but the court determined these fell within civil disputes, not suitable for writ jurisdiction. (Paras 30, 32, 36)
(D) The court cited precedents establishing that police protection cannot be sought in matters where rights remain unadjudicated. (Paras 36, 38)
Findings of Court:
The petitions were dismissed as the disputes were civil in nature and not appropriate for writ jurisdiction, with the court allowing state intervention in future law and order issues.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. limitations of writ jurisdiction in civil disputes (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 2. writ petitions dismissed due to civil nature of disputes (Para 40) |
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
These three writ petitions are based on same set of facts and involve common questions of law. Hence, they are heard together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.39181 of 2022 and his family members are Parishioners of the 7th respondent- St. Mary’s Cathedral Basilica of Archdiocese of Ernakulam- Angamaly. The petitioner states that he is bound to attend the Mass as prescribed by the Holy See and the 6th respondent Synod of Major Archiepiscopal Church of Ernakulam-Angamaly. The petitioner states that the 5th respondent is the Apostolic Administrator of the 4th respondent Major Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly appointed by the Roman Pontiff and he has issued a Ext.P1 Circular dated 30.09.2022. The 5th respondent on 20.11.2022 declared that from 27.11.2022, the Unified Synodal Mass, as directed by Ext.P1 Circular will be celebrated in the Church at 6 a.m.
3. When the petitioner along with his wife reached the Church by 5.30 a.m., the gates of the Church were locked and the members of the 9th respondent, who had assembled inside the Church and its premises, obstructed the petitioner. One among the miscreants threw a bottle filled with liquid on the petitioner, consequent to which he suffered injury and pain.
4. The 5th respondent reached in front of the Church by 5.45 a.m., but was not allowed to enter into the Church. The miscreants who had assembled inside the Church were hurling abuses and threats against the 5th respondent and demanded that he must not enter the Church. As a result, the 5th respondent could not perform the scheduled Synodal Mass at 6 a.m. in the Church.
5. The petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent-
Station House Officer, who was aware of the issue, did not immediately interfere to abate the criminal trespass, intimidation and obstruction. The 3rd respondent locked the Church and the issue is pending consideration before the District Collector, Ernakulam. The members of the 9th respondent-AMT, Archdiocesan Movement for Transparency Society and other miscreants assembling in front of the Church are blocking the road, interfering with vehicular movements and thereby causing law and order situation. The Parishioners of the Church lodged Ext.P2 complaint before the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Police. The 9th respondent had filed OS No.825/2021 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam seeking injunction restraining respondents 4 to 6 from performing the Unified Synodal Mass. The interim application for injunction filed by the 9th respondent stands dismissed as per Ext.P3 order dated 26.11.2021.
6. The petitioner states that the members of the 9th respondent and other miscreants are still threatening the petitioner and his family and are obstructing the petitioner from attending the Unified Synodal Mass in the Church, performed by the 5th respondent. The petitioner therefore seeks to direct the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Police to give adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and his family members to attend the Unified Synodal Holy Mass performed by the 5th respondent in the 7th respondent-
Church.
7. W.P.(C) No.39197 of 2022 has been filed by the Archbishop of Thrissur Archeparchy, who is appointed by Pope Francis / Apostolic See, as Apostolic Administrator with the full powers of the Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly. The petitioner states that the Synod of Bishops is the final authority of Syro-Malabar hierarchy to prescribe the procedures of liturgy and to decide the basic structure of liturgy. It is the duty of the Eparchial-Diocesan Bishop to enforce it in his Eparchy/Dioces.
8. According to the petitioner, the Synod of Bishops of Syro-Malabar decided to implement Uniform Mode of Holy Mass and gave instructions to all the 35 Dioceses. As many as 34 Dioceses had impl
