Kerala church dispute: Why SC held the Jacobites in contempt of court

The Supreme Court of India, on Tuesday, 3 December 2024, found members of the Jacobite Syrian Church in contempt for “wilfully disobeying” earlier rulings regarding the transfer of church administration to the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, as set out in the latter's 1934 constitution.

The ruling was issued by a bench of justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan in response to special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by Kerala government officials, the Kerala Police, and members of the Jacobite Church, challenging the Kerala High Court's order of 17 October.

The Supreme Court directed the Jacobite faction to surrender control of six churches — three in Ernakulam and three in Palakkad districts — and to submit affidavits confirming compliance. The six churches involved are the St John’s Besfage Jacobite Syrian Church at Pulinthanam, St Mary’s Church at Odakkali, St Thomas Church at Mazhuvannoor in the Angamaly diocese, St Mary’s Church at Mangalamdam, St Mary’s Church at Erukkumchira and St Thomas Church at Cherukunnam in the Thrissur diocese. Failure to comply would result in contempt proceedings.

Previously, the Kerala High Court had ordered the district collectors of Ernakulam and Palakkad to take possession of the churches under Jacobite control, following complaints from the Malankara faction that the Jacobite group was obstructing the implementation of the Supreme Court's 2017 judgement, which recognised the Malankara faction's administrative rights over the churches. The state authorities were accused of failing to enforce the ruling.

Simultaneously, the Supreme Court instructed the Malankara Orthodox faction to ensure that shared facilities within these churches — such as burial grounds, schools and hospitals — remain accessible to the Jacobite community, in accordance with the 1934 constitution. The matter is scheduled for further consideration on 17 December.

During the hearing, the bench emphasised that the legal issues regarding church administration had already been conclusively addressed in the 2017 judgement. Justice Bhuyan pointed out that further arguments would be irrelevant unless the Jacobite faction first complied with the previous rulings. Justice Kant reiterated that the Jacobite group must hand over the keys to the churches before further discussions could proceed, adding that access to public amenities, such as burial grounds, must remain open to both factions.

The Court further directed the Malankara Orthodox faction to provide a written undertaking, confirming that shared facilities within the churches — including burial grounds, schools and hospitals — would be accessible to all members of the community, regardless of allegiance to the 1934 constitution.

Senior advocate CU Singh, representing the Malankara faction, argued that the provision of such services should comply with the 1934 constitution to avoid disputes over the role of priests in these services.

The Court set a two-week deadline for compliance and ordered the continuation of exemptions previously granted to Kerala government officials in related proceedings.

The case will be revisited on 17 December to assess progress, with the Court expressing hope for a resolution before Christmas. “We are hopeful all of you will celebrate Christmas without any problems,” remarked Justice Kant.

In a related exchange, senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the state, suggested that some issues raised in the ongoing Sabarimala reference before a nine-judge bench could also be relevant to this case. However, K.K. Venugopal, representing the Malankara faction, dismissed this as a “red-herring argument”. Kumar also requested a hearing after Christmas, but the bench declined, stating that it wanted to see progress before then.

The central question being deliberated by the bench is whether courts can intervene in religious matters. The case involves a review petition against the ruling that allowed the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple. The matter was referred to the nine-judge bench by the bench hearing the review petition. The Jacobite Church, which supported the Sabarimala verdict, has expressed its anticipation of the larger bench's decision.

On the other hand, senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, representing the Orthodox Church, accused the state government of making politically motivated decisions in favour of the Jacobite Church.

Justice Kant reiterated that the primary concern was the implementation of the 2017 Supreme Court judgement, stressing, “If the Supreme Court judgement cannot be followed, where will the common citizens go?” He urged the Jacobite faction to comply with the ruling before raising further objections.

The Supreme Court’s recent directive comes amid ongoing tensions between the two factions over the control and administration of several churches in Kerala. The ruling seeks to enforce provisions of the 1934 constitution, aiming to resolve a long-standing dispute over the governance of the Malankara Syrian Church.

The dispute centres on the ongoing conflict between the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church over control of church properties and leadership authority.

In 2017, the Supreme Court, led by justices S. Ravindra Bhat and U.U. Lalit, issued a final ruling affirming the Orthodox faction's rights to administer the disputed churches.

Since the 2017 verdict, the Orthodox faction has assumed control of several churches, with the blessings of the High Court. However, the Supreme Court disapproved of attempts to involve the police in the takeover of the churches, asserting that religious institutions should not be subjected to such interventions.

Earlier, the Kerala High Court had initiated contempt proceedings against several officials, including former chief secretary V. Venu and the police chief of Ernakulam, for their involvement in the attempted church takeover using police forces. These senior officials later moved the Supreme Court to halt the contempt actions against them.