Compliance with SC verdict can't be one way traffic: Malankara Church members to Kerala High Court in plea against consecration of new Catholicos

Parishioners of St. Mary’s Syrian Orthodox Church at Piravom, which was previously with the Jacobite faction, recently approached the Kerala High Court seeking directions restraining the the newly consecrated Catholicos from entering and officiating ecclesiastical, spiritual and temporal powers in the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Churches and its properties. (KU Baby & Anr. v State of Kerala & Ors.).Justice N Nagaresh heard the case extensively earlier this week and reserved it for orders..The petition, filed through Advocate Haris Beeran sought a declaration holding that the consecration of Catholicos without inviting the Patriarch was invalid as it violated the judgment of the Supreme Court in KS Varghese v.St. Peters & St. Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church & Ors which upheld the validity of the 1934 Constitution as binding on the Malankara Church. .A different petition had been filed at the Kerala High Court days before the consecration meeting that was held on October 15 seeking to prevent the consecration of new Catholicos. However, the meeting went on as planned with a new Catholicos, Dr Mathews Mar Severios who adopted the new name of Baselios Mar Thoma Mathews III Catholicos, after he was consecrated. .Advocate Beeran argued that the new Catholicos is not validly consecrated as the process went against Section 114 of the 1934 constitution which was upheld and clarified by the Supreme Court in K.S. Varghese..Section 114 of the 1934 constitution deals with how the Catholicos are to be consecrated and reads as follows:“If anyone shall be consecrated as Catholicos he shall be elected to that office by the association. If such election is approved by the Episcopal Synod, the Synod shall consecrate the person as Catholicos. If there be a Patriarch recognised by the Malankara Church the Patriarch shall be invited when the Catholicos shall be consecrated and if the Patriarch arrives, he shall, as the President of the Synod, consecrate the Catholicos with the co-operation of the Synod.”The condition that, ‘if there be a patriarch recognized by the Malankara church’ in said section was dispensed with by the Supreme Court by holding that the present Patriarch of Antioch is the Patriarch envisaged under section 114 of the 1934 constitution..The petitioner produced a letter from the Patriarch's office in Syria confirming that he had not been invited for consecration which, Beeran argued, is a clear proof of violation of KS Varghese..However, Senior Advocate S Sreekumar, appearing for the respondent Orthodox faction, argued that the Patriarch's role is diminishing and there is no patriarch who has been recognised by the orthodox faction. Moreover, he contended that the observations regarding Section 114 of the 1934 constitution made by the Supreme Court can be considered as findings and not as directions. Therefore, he argued against the maintainability of the petition as it is seeks to enforce findings of the Supreme Court.Advocate Beeran responded by arguing that compliance with Supreme Court judgment cannot be a one way traffic and respondents cannot pick and choose word from the judgment favourable to them..When Justice Nagaresh asked the counsel to argue on maintainability of the case, Beeran vehemently argued that the judgement of the Supreme Court must be considered and enforced as a whole and that a writ petition is maintainable when it seeks enforcement of Supreme Court judgements as is in the case at hand. He argued that under Article 144 of the Constitution of India, all authorities, both civil and judicial within the Indian territory shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.Moreover, he pointed out several instances when the Kerala High Court had entertained petitions filed by the orthodox faction for enforcement of KS Varghese itself. .The plea also relied on the decision of the supreme court in St. Mary’s Orthodox Church and Ors vs State Police chief and Ors in which it was held, “There cannot be any violation of the order by anyone concerned. Even the State government cannot act contrary to the judgment and the observations made by this court and has the duty to ensure that the judgment of this court is implemented forthwith. The state and all parties shall abide by the judgment passed by this court in totality and cannot solve the matter in any manner different than the judgment passed by this Court".Therefore, the petitioner has arrayed the officers holding the highest position in the State Government, the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police, as respondents 1 and 2 in the matter."If they stand as silent spectators, it will amount to connivance to illegality", the plea said. .The matter has been reserved for orders..By way of background, the Supreme Court had, in 1995, held that a Constitution that was approved in 1934 at a meeting convened by the Malankara Association, was valid. It was also held that the Malankara Church is episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution, and that the Constitution fully governs the affairs of the parish churches.The 1934 constitution was passed by the Malankara Association, a forum of elected representatives of priests and laity from all the parishes. It states that the Malankara metropolitan (Catholicos) is the head of the Church and the Patriarch of Antioch has no claim on its temporal assets.Then in 2017, a Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra passed a judgment in KS Varghese v.St. Peters & St. Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church & Ors. Here, it was held that the 1995 judgment was binding and operates as res judicata. It further held that it was not permissible to create a parallel system of management in the churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch.In 2019, the Kerala High Court began hearing a petition seeking to restrain Vicars/Priests who are not appointed as per the 1934 Constitution from conducting religious services at St. Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church run by the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.The High Court, while allowing the respondent patriarch faction to file a counter statement, effectively allowed the patriarch faction to conduct religious services in the church as a temporary measure. This order was then challenged before the Supreme Court.In an order passed on September 6, the Supreme Court did not take kindly to the High Court passing an order in a matter that has been settled by its 2017 order and restrained the Kerala High Court as well as all the civil courts in the state from passing any orders in violation of KS Varghese.