Kerala HC Orders District Collectors To Take Over Six Disputed Churches Amid Orthodox-Jacobite Feud

This decision follows a civil contempt petition after the police failed to implement the Court's previous order ensuring sufficient protection for the Orthodox faction's religious activities in these churches.

A Bench of Justice V. G. Arun issued the directive in response to the inadequacy of police protection, which had hindered the Orthodox faction's ability to conduct religious services. The Court noted that despite its earlier instructions, the police had not managed to enforce the order effectively, leading to continued conflict and unrest. The Court said, “in the cases under consideration, the recalcitrant attitude of the official respondents and disregard of the directions by the party respondents leaves this Court with no option but to issue directions for preventing the contemptuous acts.”

The specific churches affected by this order are:

• Ernakulam District: St. Mary's Orthodox Church, Odakkali; St. John's Besphage Orthodox Syrian Church, Pullithanam; and St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church, Muzhuvannor.
• Palakkad District: St. Mary's Orthodox Church, Mangalam Dam; St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church, Erickinchira; and St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church, Cherukunnam.

Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar appeared for the Petitioners and Additional Advocate General Asok M. Cherian appeared for the Respondents.

During the proceedings, the State informed the Court that attempts to implement the order had been obstructed by significant protests led by the Jacobites, which included a wide range of participants, including the elderly, children, and women. The State expressed concerns that enforcing the order might provoke further violence.

In response, the Court criticized the police for failing to devise a strategy to enforce its order, leading to its decision to instruct the District Collectors to take over the disputed churches directly. The Court also addressed arguments from the respondents who contended that the Court could only impose penalties for contempt rather than issuing enforcement directions. However, the Court emphasized that it could not passively accept disobedience of its orders.

The Court remarked, “It needs no reiteration that disobedience of court orders strikes at the root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. If conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law to disrepute is allowed to be perpetuated that will result in the entire system being maligned. It is the bounden duty of every court to uphold the majesty of law and maintain the purity of the system”

Cause Title: St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church & Anr. v. Dr. Venu V. Ias & Ors.

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, Advocates Roshen D. Alexander, Tina Alex Thomas, Harimohan & Kochurani James

Respondents: Additional Advocate General Asok M. Cherian, Senior Advocate K. Ramakumar, Advocates Sreenath Vijayaraghavan & P. Vijayaraghavan & P.V. Elias