New Delhi: The Kerala government’s repeated efforts to implement a 2017 Supreme Court judgment on the long-running dispute between two Christian sects over the control of churches has faced stiff resistance from one of the two factions, which has threatened to put children, women and elderly people in the forefront of protests.
According to the 2017 judgment, all Malankara parish churches are to be be administered by the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and should be governed by the Church’s 1934 constitution.
However, despite the top court’s order, the rival faction—the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church—continues to control several churches, refusing to hand them over. Last week, the Supreme Court observed that the Jacobite Church was in contempt for “wilfully disobeying” the court’s judgment.
In an affidavit submitted last week before the Supreme Court, the Kerala government urged a legislative solution to the decades-old tussle between the two factions, claiming that the implementation of SC’s judgment could result in a law-and-order situation in places where the churches are located. Citing intelligence inputs, the state warned of the possibility of suicides, state-wide protests, road blockades, and casualties in the event of a forceful handing over of the churches.
Seeking six months more to implement the 2017 verdict, the state said it is exploring the possibility of a peaceful settlement and would engage with both sects through discussions and mediations.
One of the state’s counsels told ThePrint, “Even though the dispute theoretically ended in 2017 with the SC judgment, it remains an ongoing one on the ground. The Orthodox have had to approach courts for seeking physical possession of the churches that have got so far.”
Also Read: Allow us to confess before a priest of our choice — women from Jacobite Syrian Church tell SC
On the administration of seven churches
In the affidavit, the Kerala government highlighted the multiple efforts it made to ensure the control of the churches is handed over to the Orthodox faction.
It also gives details of how litigation has ensued in the state post the 2017 SC judgment. Since then, the Orthodox faction has approached the Kerala High Court several times, requesting police protection to administer offerings in its churches without any hindrance from the Jacobite faction.
While taking note of the Kerala government’s affidavit and the state’s stand on the subject, the Supreme Court on 5 December ordered the two Malankara sects to comply with the 2017 judgment. It directed the Jacobite faction to hand over the control of the seven churches at the centre of this litigation. While three fall in the Ernakulam district, four are in Palakkad.
A bench led by Justice Surya Kant ordered the Jacobite faction to file a compliance affidavit in the top court while observing the state must stay out of such tussles. The court also asked the Malankara Orthodox faction to give an undertaking in writing that all public facilities in the churches’ compounds—such as grounds, schools, and hospitals, etc— shall continue to be available to everyone without requiring a pledge of allegiance to its 1934 constitution for availing public amenities.
The origins of the tussle
Formed in the 17th century, the Malankara church was a result of resistance of local Christian groups on the Malabar coast to Portuguese attempts to make them follow the Latin Catholic rites. The Christians of the Kerala coast who refused to embrace the traditions of the Portuguese colonists believed their ancestors were baptised by St Thomas the Apostle, one of the 12 disciples of Jesus Christ.
Following a feud, this non-Catholic community was divided into two factions in 1912. This marked the beginning of a long series of litigations between the two over the control of churches and allied properties. While both follow the same liturgy rites, they hold divergent views on leadership.
The Orthodox sect, based in Kottayam, believes in the native Malankara Metropolitan as its leader. On the other hand, the Jacobite faction considers the Patriarch of Antioch as its supreme head.
The two drafted a constitution in 1934, which declared the Patriarch of Antioch as the spiritual head. But it added that he could govern only with the support of the Orthodox faction.
In 1958, the top court derecognised the Patriarch of Antioch’s leadership and since then the two groups have clashed regularly.
On 3 July 2017, a bench led by Justice Arun Mishra ruled that the right to administer about 1,000 Malankara churches and parishes in Kerala lay with the Orthodox group in line with the 1934 guidelines.
Though this verdict was specifically in relation to two Malankara churches, the SC held in its decision that the suits before it should be treated as representation, meaning that the legal principle laid down in its judgment should be made applicable to all the churches belonging to the group.
Current controversy
The current controversy pending in the top court arises from a contempt case drawn against the Kerala government which has been accused of willful disobedience and non-compliance with the order of the state HC.
The state moved the top court in November this year after the HC summoned Kerala government officers in response to the contempt petitions filed in connection with the seven churches.
In response to the SC’s direction, Kerala filed a detailed affidavit, enumerating the steps it has taken as part of the effort to implement the top court’s 2017 verdict.
However, the state admitted that the Jacobites continued to retain possession of 13 out of 43 churches in Ernakulam and four churches in Palakkad and that it has faced challenges in implementing the SC judgment.
“The government are [sic] of the view that taking over the possession of the churches under dispute and handing over the keys to one of the factions cannot be done in a mechanical way and this would not provide a permanent solution for the long-standing dispute between two factions in the matter of worship,” the state affidavit said, informing the court of the faction’s continued resistance.
It assured the court that it was making “earnest efforts” to find an amicable solution to the tussle.
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: Modi fan, ‘kathmullah’ hater—what Justice Shekhar Yadav has been saying in and outside courtrooms