[Kothamangalam Church Contempt Case] Single instance of insolent defiance enough to shake confidence in judiciary: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday pulled up the Kerala Government for its failure to comply with the Court's 2019 judgment in the contentious Kothamangalam Marthoman Cheriyapalli Church dispute (Fr. Thomas Paul Ramban v. S. Suhas)..Issuing interim orders in the matter, the Court directed that CRPF would take control over the church, should the State fail to comply with its earlier directions in the matter..Justice PB Suresh Kumar minced no words in criticising the State for its failure to act on the Court's 2019 judgment, observing:"…a large number of litigants approach this Court for relief and a single instance of insolent defiance of an order of the Court is sufficient to shake the confidence reposed by the public in the judicial institutions...”.He highlighted that the State cannot be given the discretion to decide whether or not to implement the orders of the court or to choose the time within which the orders are implemented. Such discretion would go against the supremacy of the rule of law, the judge added..In a country, the Constitution of which is built on the principle of rule of law, if the State does not implement the directions of the court, that will be the end of the rule of law and there would be a constitutional stalemate.Kerala High Court.The Kothamangalam church, a constituent of the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, is presently at the centre of a bitter feud between Jacobite (the Patriarch faction) and Orthodox factions of the church..The Kerala High Court had earlier upheld the order of a Munsiff Court issuing a temporary injunction in favour of the Orthodox faction-appointed vicar Father Thomas Paul Ramban. .The Munsiff Court order allowed the vicar to perform religious functions in the church, while also directing police protection to be afforded to the vicar so as to ensure compliance with the order. .Thereafter, the vicar filed a writ petition averring that the order was not being complied with. .In December last year, the Kerala High Court had ordered the removal of all persons squatting inside the church and its compound and take over its precincts and its movables. The High Court also rejected the State’s claim that the Patriarch faction had to be “convinced by persuasion” to accept their failure in the litigation..The said order further directed the arrest of any person who created a law and order situation or obstructed religious services in the church..Contempt proceedings were instituted following the non-compliance with the Court’s December 2019 order..During the hearing of the contempt case in January this year, the District Collector submitted that implementing the Court order would be difficult since “a lion’s share of the parishioners" was collectively opposing the implementation of the Court’s order..The State did not commit to implementing the orders in question at subsequent hearings as well, the High Court observed..Justice Suresh Kumar agreed that implementation of the order could lead to a law and order situation as argued by the State. However, it was always open to the executive government to approach the Court which passed the order or to the higher Court for appropriate modifications of the order, the Judge remarked..I do not think the courts in India have ever failed in understanding the genuine difficulties in implementing the orders of the Court.Justice PB Suresh Kumar.The State had placed on record an affidavit seeking an adjournment of the contempt proceedings, claiming that the Kerala Chief Minister was mediating between the two factions in an attempt to bring the matter to settlement. .The State added that both factions have undertaken not to insist on the implementation of the order until a final decision is taken or use force to take over the Church. Any action now would create a law and order situation, the State submitted..The Judge rejected this submission, finding that the minutes did not reveal any such undertaking from the parties. Holding that such a settlement meeting could not automatically act as an impediment to continuing pending judicial proceedings (unless the parties agreed to such a course), the Court directed the compliance of its earlier judgment..The Court additionally pointed out that any law and order situation would per se constitute criminal contempt and the executive was expected to be able to tackle such a challenge.."If the executive government is not in a position to tackle such situations, it would pose a serious challenge to the existence of judiciary and the rule of law", the Court added..The Court also said:.“If the said stance is accepted as sufficient cause for not implementing the directions issued by this court, it will give a wrong message to the society and the same will ruin the confidence, the general public repose in the system”.On these terms, the Court directed compliance with its orders on or before January 8, 2021..The Assistant Solicitor General of India was instructed to communicate the order to the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF for compliance..Read the Order: