Holding

A writ court under Article 226 cannot entertain or decide private law disputes over title and management of churches that are pending before civil courts; the High Court’s adjudication of such matters was a manifest error.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition for police protection under Article 226 was maintainable given the pending civil disputes over church property and title.
Whether a High Court can decide private law matters, such as title and management of religious institutions, in a writ proceeding.
Whether the Supreme Court can review the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 136 when the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 136, s. Article 144, s. Article 226

Subjects

writ jurisdictionArticle 226religious institutionsproperty disputepolice protectioncivil suitmaintainabilityappellate jurisdictionArticle 136

Judgment

A MOHAN M. BASELIOS MARTHOMA MA THEWS Li AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS: (

APRJL 4, 2007
B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:
"
"i

Article 226-Writ petition involving disputeif. .iillestions of rights and
C title to properties-Dispute between religious gro~ps' 'regarding ri¢hts and
-
privileges of Catholics cum Malankara Metropolitan of Ma/ankarlf Church
and properties of Church-Writ Petition by one group seeking a writ of
mandamus to State authorities to provide police protection to them for
exercise of their rights against private respondents-:-.Observation of High
D . Court on merits of the case regarding rights and title of parties-Held,
disputed questions in regard to title of the properties or the right of one
group against the other in respect of the managemt/nt of such a large number i-..-
of Churches could not have been the subject mait~.,tfor ~termination by a 1

writ Court under Article 226 in the garb of gtioi(d}police prqtection-The
High Court committed a manifest error in going into the disputed questions
E of title and rights of a particular group to manage the Churches, in exercise
of its writ jurisdiction, particularly, when suc,h questions are pending
consideration before competent Civil Courts.
·-
Article I 36 read with Article 226-Question of maintainability of writ
F petition filed before High Court-Held: while. exercising jurisdiction under
Article 136, Supreme Court can go into the question whether writ petition
could have been entertained by High Court, particularly, when appeal is
continuation of original proceedings-Appeal.

Appellants filed a writ petition before the High Collrt praying, inter alia,
G for a writ of mandamus directing respondents • .t~:~i the ~te authorities,·
"to give effective and adequate police protection to ~oneiS to exercise their
rights, duties and privileges as The Catholicos cum Malankara Metropolitan
of the Malankara Church with respect to the certain Parishbs and Institutions "
of the Malankara Church without any theat or obstructionrt'rom respondents

H 876
MOHANM.BASELIOSMARTIIOMAMATHEWSLi v. STATEOFKERALA 877
5 to 13." Claims were also raised over the properties of the Churches in A
relation whereto about 200 civil suits were pending in different courts in the
State.:- The High Court went into the merits of the matter and holding, inter
alia, ttlat it cannot be said that contesting respondents had no right to manage
the properties or that petitioner no.I had any right over the Churches which
were parties in the case, declined to issue the writ of mandamus as prayed
for. Aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed the present appeals. B
During the pendency of the appeals, appellant no.I resigned from the
.... post o~atholicos of Malankara Metropolitan, and the application for
substitution filed by his successor was opposed by the respondents contending
that qu4)jtion with regard to the validity or otherwise of election of Catholicos
was pen\ling consideration in a suit.
c
..
Disposing of the appeals and dismissing the impleadment application,
the Court

HELD: 1.1. Disputed questions in regard to title of the properties or
D
the right of one group against the other in respect of the management of such
_, a large number of Churches could not have been the subject matter for•
.... determination by a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia
in the garb of grant of police protection to one or the other appellants.
[Para I2] [883-D]
E
P.R. Murlidharan & Ors. v. Swami Dharamananda Theertha Padar &
Ors., [2096) 4 SCC 50I, relied on.

1.2. The"High Court committed a manifest error in going into the
disputed question of title as also the disputed question in regard to the rights
of a particular group to manage the .Churches, in exercise of its writ F
jurisdiction, particularly, when such questions are pending consideration
.? t before competent Civil Courts. This is more so in view of the fact that even a
large number of persons who have filed different suits in different courts of
law were not parties before the High Court in the writ petition and, thus, any
observation and ~ndings of the High Court would otherwise also not be binding
on them. Any otirervation made by the High Court should not influence the
G
Courts concerned Iin arriving at their independent decisions and in respect
thereof, all conten,tion of the parties shall remain open.
). [Paras I5 and I6) (884-B, D)
.r ) J'

2. Despite the fact that the appellants had insisted upon before the High H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.
-.
A Court for issuance of a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus up~n the
State or its officers for the purpose of grant of police protection, as this ~ourt
has exercised its appellant jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitu,tion,
it can and should go into that question as well, viz., as to whether thi writ
petition itself could have been entertained or not, particularly, when the appeal
is a continuation of the original proceedings. [Para 13) [883-E-F]
B
3. As regards inte~pretation of judgment in Most Rev. P.M.A.
Metropolitan*, suffice itto. say that there being a Letters Patent Appeal
pending before the High Court,. this Court refrains from going theWo
contention. [Para 14) [883-G; 884-AJ -~ .
c *Most. Rev. P.MA. Metropolitan & Ors. v. Moran Mar Marthom~~
, Ors.,
AIR (1995) SC 2001, referred to.

CNIL APPELLATE WRISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5460-5466 OF
2004
D From the Judgment and Order dated 28.0 l.2003 of the High Court of
Kerala at Eamakulam in O.P. Nos. 22946 of2002(F), 28495 of2002(P), 29100
of2002(L), 30100 of2002(G), 30421of2002(V),31059 of2002 (V) and 39270 .
of2002(Y)

RF. Nariman Sr. Adv., E.M.S. Anam and Fazlin Anam for the...Appeilants.
E
K. Parasaran, T.R. Andhiarujina, Anil Diwan and T.M. Mohd YousuffSr.
Adv., P.J.Philip, A Raghunath, Sudarsh Menon, Mahesh Singh, Shakil Ahmed
Syed, P. SSurenshan, P. V. Dinesh, Sindllu T. P., Naveen R. Nath;'Netu Arora,
Lalit Mohini Bhat, P.K. Manohar, M .. T. George and G. Ramakrishna Prasad for
F the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. Dispute between the parties centres round the
management ofa large number of Churches known as "Syrian Churches". The
G present controversy arises in regard to the interpretation of a decision of this
Court in Most. Rev. P.MA. Metropolitan and Ors. v. Moran~ar-Maithoma
& Ors., AIR ( 1995) SC 200 I. A writ petition was filed by the :appellants herein
before the Kerala High Court, praying inter alia, for the fol~owing reliefs:

"a. In the above facts and circumstances of the cilSe this Hon 'ble
H Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
MOHANM. BASELIOS MARlHOMAMATIIEWS Li "·STATEOFKERALA [S. B. SINHA, J.) 879

appropriate writ order or directions commanding respondents 1 to 4 A
; and their subordinates to give effective and adequate police protection
to the First Petitioner to exercise his rights, duties and privileges as
The Catholicos cum Malankara Metropolitan of the Malankara Church
with respect to the Parishes mentioned in Exhibit P4 and Institutions
of the Malankara Church without any threat or obstruction from
Respondents 5 to 13 or their agents or servants in any manner. B

- ; . To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
directions commanding respondents I to 4 to give effective and
adequate police protection to Petitioners to exercise their rights, duties
and privileges as Metropolitans of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian
~urch under the First Petitioner without any threat or obstruction C
from the Respondents 5 to 13 or their agents or servants in any
manner.

c. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
directions commanding respondents 1 to 4 to give effective and D
I
adequate police protection to other Bishops similarly placed as well
as to the faithful members of the Malankara Church for the purpose
of participating in the conduct of religious services in the said Parish"
Churches of the Malankara Church by petitioners without any threat
or obstruction from Respondents 5-13 or their agents or servants in
any manner. E
d. lss11e a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction commanding respondents l to 4 to take steps to see that
respondents 5 to 13 do not enter into any of the churches of the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church mentioned in Exhibit P4 and

..> r
Institutions of the Malankara Church in any capacity either as F
Catholicose, Bishop, PTiest or in any other manner.

e. Issue appropriate directions to Respondents 1 to 4 to restrain
respondents 5 to 13 from in any way obstructing the petitioners from
exercis~g the powers in accordance with the provisions of 1934
Constitutfon of the Malankara Church with respect to the Parish G
Churches, of the Malankara Church mentioned in Exhibit P4 and
Institutions of the Church .
• ....
. f. Direct respondents 5 to 13 to pay the cost of this petition to the
petitioners."
H
-·\"'"
-

880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4fS.c.R.

A 2. One of the contentions which has been raised before the High Court
was the maintainability of the writ petition on the premise that it c,04.Id not
have gone into the disputed questions of fact and, particularly, the application
of the said judgment in relation to Parish Churches. Appellants, however,
raised a contention that the writ petition was maintainable as the State and
its officers having regard to the provisions contained in Article 144 of the
B Constitution of India are duty bound to give effect to the decision of this
Court

3. The High Court in view of the rival contention of the parties furmulated
two questions for its consideration: I
C · "I. Are the con!esting responde~ts bound by the ju~ment of
their lordships of the Supreme Court in Most Rev. P.MA. Metropolitan
v. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR (1995) SC 200 I?
2. Is a case for the issue of a writ of mandamus as prayed for by
the petitioners made out?"
D
4. Upon noticing the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, ....
.....
including the one that the appellants herein had raised claims over the
properties of the aforesaid Churches; in relation whereto there exists serious
dispute and about 200 civil suits are pending in different courts in the State
ofKerala.
E
5. The High Court, however, went into the mer.it of the matter and
opined that so far as the right'> of Parish Churc~es are concerired, here was
no d_eclaration as against them, having not been impleaded in the proceedings
before the Supreme· Court. Having opined so, the High Court held:
F "i. The rights of the Parish Churches were not determined by the i "-
Supreme Court in the 1995 decision. Thus, it cannot be said that the
contesting respondents have no right to manage their properties or
that the I st petitioner has any right over the Churches which were not
parties in the case;
~
G ii. All the Churches listed in Exh. P-4 having not geen impleaded as

-
parties, no order affecting the rights of those who are not before the
Court can be passed; t
-t_, •
iii. The Churches had the right to form a separate Association. They
were also entitled to leave the Malankara Association under Arts, 19,
H
'!
"-
MoHANM. BASELIOS MAft1HOMAMA1HEWS Li v. STATE OF KERALA [S. B. SINHA, J.)
;
881
,..:
(25 and 26. It has not been shown that they had acted illegally in doing A
1 so;
y
iv. Police help cannot be ordered for he mere asking. It involves
expense for the State. It is not a substitute for proceedings before an
appropriate authority or court. It can be normally granted only when
there is clear evidence of an existing danger to person or property. In B
matters involving religious institutions, it would be normally
.,.,
___..
~appropriate to order the grant of police protection unless a clear
~~.se for allowing the entry of the police is made out;

v. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances as noticed
~~ove, no ground for the issue of a writ of mandamus as prayed for c
b ·the petitioner is made out."

6. Before we embark upon the rival contentions raised by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the parties before us, we m!!y notice that
Appellant No. l is said to have resigned from the post of Catholicos of the
Malankara Metropolitan in 2005. He died on 26.1.2006. An application for D
~
t substitution has been filed by his successor who is Chief Catholico and
Malanakra Metropolitan, which has been marked as I.A. No. 16 of2006. The
said substitution application is being opposed by the respondents herein
conteading that the question in regard to the validity or otherwise of the
election of the Catholicos is pending consideration in a suit. Having regard
E
to the fact that there exists dispute as to whether the appellicant herein is a
validly elected person for holding the aforementioned post, and furthermore,
in view of the fact that, in his absence, whether we can proceed with the
appeals, we do not intend to pass any order in the substitution application.

7. The short question which arises for consideration, in our opinion, is F
._;.
~ as to whether in a situation of this nature, the High Court should have gone
into the rival contentions of the parties. Our answer is 'No'. There cannot be
any doubt whatsoever that prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus may
be granted against the State commanding it to perform its legal duties when
it fails and/or raglects to do so. It is, however, another thing that while
considering only t!iat a5pect of the matter, the Court in the garb of rendering G
a decision .on that: limited aspect would go into the disputed question of title
).
and/or interpretation of a judgment of this Court wherefor other remedies are
....- not only availab1' but, as noticed hereinbefore, in fact, more than 200 suits,
touching one aspect of the matter or the other, are pending in different Civil
Courts. H
.,,;
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] t S.C.R.

8. A distinction, in our opinion, must be borne in mind in regatd to the '--.
A
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution o( India in
relation to the matters providing for public law remedy vis-a-vis private law
remedy. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution, no doubt, exercises a plenary power but then certain limitations
in regard thereto are well accepted. Ordinarily, a writ of or in the nature of
B mandamus would be issued against a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India or the public authorities discharging public
functions or a public utility concern or where the functions of the ref!PUndents °" ,.
are referable to a statute, which a fortiorari would ni"ean that save :~nd except
for good reasons Court would not entertain a matter involving. private law
c remedy.
·l
9. The question as regards grant of a relief for providing police protection
in a somewhat similar case, came up for consideration before this Court in P.
R. Murlidharan & Ors. v. Swami ])haramananda Theertha Padar & Ors.,
[2006] 4 SCC 501 wherein one of us was a party. It was held therein:
D
"Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is wide and plenary.
-'I
In a case of this nature, a writ proceeding cannot be a substitute for ~

a civil suit."
~

10. Balasubramanyan, J., in his concurring opinion observed:
E
"A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the police authoritic;:s to gtve protection" t~ a ~it petitioner,
cannot be made a forum for adjudicating
~ .. on civil rights:-lt
. is one thing
to approach the High ~ourt, fo~jssuance of such a writ on a plea that
a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction
F passed in favour of the writ petitioner; was deliberately flouting that
decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that
the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in
. terms of the decree or order passed by a court with jurisdiction. But,
...it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection
in respect of property, status or right which remains ~fbe adjudicated
G upon and when such an adjudication can only ibe got done in a
properly instituted civil suit. It would be !ill abuse of' process for a writ
petitioner to approach the High Court under Ahicle 226 of the
Constitution seeking a writ of Mandamus diref:ting the police
authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without
H first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil court. The
MOHAN M. BASELIOS MARTIIOMA MATIIEWS Li 1•. STATE OF KERALA [S. B. SINHA, J.) 883
,.,
temptation to grant relief in cases of this nature should be resisted by A
the High Court. The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution would remain effective and meaningful only when it is
exercised prudently and in appropriate situations."

11. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
herein contend that the appellants before us cannot be permitted to take a B
different stand ?ow, nor can they be allowed to play fast and loose. The High
-,.
Court had arrived at its opinion only at their behest. Our attention in this
,
behalf has also been drawn even to the grounds taken by the appellants
before us to contend that a writ of or in the nature of mandamus was sought
for enforcing the purported legal right of the appellant vis-a-vis the State and
its officers and not an against the private persons.
c
/ 12. Such might have been the contentions of the appellants before the
High Court or before us in the special leave petitions, but we have no doubt
in our mind that such disputed questions in regard to title of the properties
or the right of one group against the other in respect of the management of D
..... f such a large number of Churches could not have been the subject matter for
determination by a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
in the garb of grant of police protection to one or the other appellants.

13. We, therefore, are of the opinion that despite the fact that the
appellants had insisted upon before the High Court for issuance of a writ or E
in the nature of mandamus upon the State or its officers for the purpose of
grant of police protection as this Court has exercised its appellate jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, it can and should go into that
question as well, viz. as to whether the writ petitioner itself could have been
entertained or not, particularly, when the appeal is a continuation of the
F
original proceedings.
"'
14. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
would moreover submit that different Benches of the High Court may take
different views in regard to the interpretation of the judgments of this Court
in Most. Rev. P.MA. Metropolitan (supra), and in support thereof has placed G
before us a judgment of the learned Single Judge of the said Court in St.
George Jacobie Syrian Christian Church & Ors. v. State of Kera/a & Ors..
passed in Writ Petition (c ) No.32114/2006, wherein a view different from the
one taken by the Division Bench of he High Court of Kerala in the impugned
- judgment, has been taken. We, howeyer, having regard to the opinion expressed
H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A hereinbefore and furthennore in view of the fact that, admittedly, a Letters
Patent Appeal thereagainst has been-filed by the aggrieved parties before the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, do not intend to go into the said
contention.
,_
15. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the
B High Court committed a manifest error in going into the disputed questions
of title as also the disputed questions in regard to the rights of a particular
group to manage the Churches, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, particularly,
when such questions are pending consideration before competent Civil Courts.
We, therefore, are of the opinion that any observation made by the High
C Court should not influence the Courts concerned in arriving at their independent
decisions and in respect thereof, all contentions of the parties shall remain
upon.

16. We are making these observations, particularly in view of the fact
that even a large number of persons who have filed different suits in different
D Courts of law were not parties before the -High Court in the writ petition and
thus any observation and findings of the High Court would otherwise also
not be binding on them.

17. It must be clarified that we have expressed no opinion on the merit
of the issue pending before the Civil Courts.
E
18. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

19. Application for impleadme~t is dismissed.

RP. Appeals disposed of.

\ /

-