Amendments allowing Local Self Governments to manage religious construction do not delegate essential sovereign functions, ensuring public order remains the state’s responsibility while promoting local decision-making.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 243G - Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 - Amendment by Ext. P11 - Writ Petition concerning the necessity of prior permission from Local Self Government for construction of religious places - The court found the amendment did not delegate essential sovereign functions such as maintenance of public order to Local Self Government Institutions - The amendment aims to decentralize decision-making regarding constructions, which can promote communal harmony. (Paras 0.1-0.3, 22, 25)

(B) Administrative Law - Delegation of Functions - The delegation of certain powers from District Collector to local authorities was questioned, but upheld as lawful and within statutory powers granted by the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. (Paras 16-19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, representing a faction of a church, challenged an amendment allowing Local Self Governments to grant building permits for religious places, arguing it undermined public order as traditionally managed by the District Collector. They cited concerns over communal tensions due to factional disputes.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the amendments did not infringe upon the rights of citizens and maintained that the delegation of permitting powers was lawful, emphasizing the responsibilities of local bodies in managing communal harmony and local order.

Issues: Whether the amendments to the guidelines constituted an improper delegation of sovereign functions concerning public order to Local Self Government Institutions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the local bodies still operate under the oversight of law enforcement agencies, thus did not abdicate the state's responsibility for public order. Additionally, allowing local authorities to manage religious construction aimed at reducing conflict and ensuring communal harmony is constitutionally valid.

Result: The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

JUDGMENT

The 1^st petitioner is a Constituent Parish Church of the Malankara Orthodox Church administered under the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church and the 2^nd petitioner is the Vicar of the 1^st 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, inVarghese 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 2^nd 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 5^th respondent had submitted an application before the 3^rd 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 4^th respondent, the Secretary to make necessary application for the same.

3. On coming to know about the said decision, the predecessor of the 2^nd petitioner submitted Ext. P5 complaint before the District Collector with respect to the proposed construction of the new church adjacent to the 1^st petitioner Church. Ext. P5 complaint was made over to the 4^th respondent Secretary along with Ext. P6 covering letter by the District Collector. While so, the 4^th respondent issued Ext. P7 letter stating that though, 5^th 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 5^th 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 'Guidelin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68600

Amendments allowing Local Self Governments to manage religious construction do not delegate essential sovereign functions, ensuring public order remains the state’s responsibility while promoting local decision-making.

Cases Referred (10)