Malankara Orthodox & Jacobite Dispute| Kerala High Court Declines To Restrain State Delegation From Attending Bishop’s Consecration In Lebanon
The Kerala High Court held that the legality of the policy decision is the subject of judicial review, not the wisdom or soundness of the decision.
The Kerala High Court declined to interfere with the State Government’s decision to send a delegation to attend the consecration ceremony of Jacobite Syrian Christian Bishop Mor Gregorios Joseph in Lebanon.
The Petitioner, belonging to Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to restrain the State of Kerala from sending a delegation to attend the consecration ceremony scheduled on 25th March, 2025. The Court pointed out that the issue before it was not whether the religious head has the authority to conduct the ceremony but whether, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Court can interfere with a policy decision of the State Government.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu held, “Courts do not interfere with policy decisions merely on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. The legality of the policy decision is the subject of judicial review, not the wisdom or soundness of the decision. The Courts exercise judicial restraint in matters of policy, unless the decisions fall within the well-settled exceptions.”
Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate General K Gopalakrishna Kurup represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner argued that the consecration ceremony violated the constitution for the Malankara Church (1934) and the 2017 Supreme Court judgment in K.S. Varghese v. St. Peters and St. Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church, which held that the Patriarch of Antioch had no authority over the Malankara Church’s administration. He contended that the State’s involvement amounted to contempt of Court and defied previous orders directing the government to uphold the 1934 Constitution.
The State opposed the Petition, arguing that the issue at hand was a religious event, not an administrative decision.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court stated that sending an official delegation is a general policy decision of the State.
“The issue before this Court in this Petition is not whether the religious head has the authority to conduct the ceremony but whether, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court can interfere with a policy decision of the State Government,” it remarked.
Further, the Bench stated, “In the present case, no pre-existing judicial order or statutory provision is shown to us directly restraining the State from sending a delegation for this event. There is a debate before us on the distinction between religious faith and property rights.”
“The Central Government has not yet granted clearance for the visit of the delegation. Clearance may or may not be granted. It is relevant to note that, though in different circumstances, there have been instances of State delegations attending religious events abroad,” it remarked.
Consequently, the Court stated that “we expect that the State Government and the Central Government (where clearance is pending) will take further action in sending the official delegation to Lebanon after considering all relevant factors – the legal, ethical, and moral, and the consequences that may ensue…we decline to grant the reliefs sought for by the Petitioner.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Gilbert Cheeran v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:24144)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy
Respondents: Advocate General K Gopalakrishna Kurup; Additional. Advocate General Asok M Cherian; Government Pleader TS Shyam Prasanth; State Attorney N Manoj Kumar; Special Government Pleader V Manu