Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Hindu
The Hindu
National
Special Correspondent

Law over Malankara church management: HC seeks clarification

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Monday directed the State Government to inform the court whether it was proposing to enact any legislation to end the factional feud in the Malankara church or not.

The Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas said that it saw in the media that the Justice K.T. Thomas panel had made some recommendations. The court, therefore, wanted to know whether the Government was going to act on them or prepare a bill on them. The court added that the exercise from outside would be futile if the Government brought up a legislation.

State Attorney submitted that the Kerala Law Reforms Commissions headed by former Supreme Court Judge K.T. Thomas had made some suggestions and the government was considering them. The commission had submitted a bill before the government proposing a referendum to determine the ownership of churches and their institutions.

The court passed the order when an appeal by the State Government against a single judge’s directive to the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Group Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, to take over the Kothamangalam Marthoma church if the Ernakulam District Collector did not implement the court’s directive in this regard.

In the appeal, the State Government said that the action of the Single Judge directing the Central force to take over the church premises within the State was an interference with the sovereign power of the State to control the law and order situation. It was the State and police authorities who should assess the law and order situation here.

The State Government further pointed out that that in contempt proceedings, if the court found that the action of the Collector in not implementing the High Court directive to take over the church was contemptuous, the single judge could only have referred the matter to a Division Bench. Therefore, the single judge’s order was in violation the scheme of contempt of court proceedings.

The court adjourned to November 22 the hearing on the appeal.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.