The oath of office
I, do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the State of and that I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
— Constitution of India, Schedule 3, Para 5
The oath of secrecy
I, <Name of Minister>, do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal to any person or persons any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as a Minister for the State of <Name of the State> except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as such Minister.
— Constitution of India, Schedule 3, Para 6
Violations of the Kerala Government in the Malankara Church Case with Respect to the Oath of Office and Oath of Secrecy
The Kerala government’s handling of the Malankara Church dispute has raised serious concerns about its adherence to constitutional obligations, particularly in relation to the oath of office and oath of secrecy that every member of the executive takes upon assuming office. The case presents clear instances where the government may have violated its constitutional duties, as outlined below:
1. Violation of the Oath of Office
The oath of office, as stipulated in Schedule 3, Para 5 of the Constitution of India, requires every minister to:
• Bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India.
• Uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Faithfully and conscientiously discharge duties.
• Do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favor, affection or ill-will.
1.1 Failure to Implement the Supreme Court Verdict
The Kerala government’s refusal or delay in implementing the 2017 Supreme Court verdict regarding the Malankara Church dispute is a clear violation of its duty to uphold the Constitution and the law. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in India, and its rulings are binding. By not enforcing this verdict, the government has undermined the authority of the judiciary, which goes against the principle of “allegiance to the Constitution” and “doing right to all manner of people in accordance with the law.”
1.2 Using Law and Order as an Excuse
The Kerala government has repeatedly cited “law and order” issues as a reason for not enforcing the court’s judgment. While maintaining peace is a legitimate concern, using it as an excuse to evade the implementation of a lawful verdict reflects favoritism and political considerations, which go against the oath’s stipulation to act “without fear or favor.” The government’s reluctance to enforce the court’s orders suggests that political interests or fears of backlash have influenced its actions, rather than a commitment to the rule of law.
1.3 Undermining Judicial Authority
By failing to act on the Supreme Court’s ruling, the government is also violating the principle of separation of powers—a core component of the Indian Constitution. The judiciary is the final interpreter of the law, and the executive is required to implement its decisions. The state’s non-compliance raises concerns about whether the government is prioritizing political interests over its constitutional obligation to respect the judgments of the judiciary.
2. Violation of the Oath of Secrecy
The oath of secrecy, as per Schedule 3, Para 6 of the Constitution, requires ministers not to reveal any matters that come under their consideration as part of their official duties, unless disclosure is required for the discharge of those duties.
2.1 Disregard for Confidentiality in Decision-making
While there are no direct allegations of breaches in confidentiality related to the Malankara Church case, the prolonged and contentious nature of the dispute has led to significant public speculation about the state government’s internal deliberations. The government’s reluctance to implement the court’s judgment has fueled suspicion that decisions are being influenced by external forces, possibly violating the confidentiality and neutrality expected of the executive in sensitive religious matters. If internal deliberations are being unduly influenced by external political pressures or affiliations, this could be seen as a violation of the principle of confidentiality and impartiality outlined in the oath of secrecy.
Conclusion: Violations of Constitutional Duties
In summary, the Kerala government’s actions in the Malankara Church case appear to violate both the oath of office and, indirectly, the oath of secrecy. Key violations include:
1. Non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s verdict, undermining the rule of law and the judiciary.
2. Citing law and order concerns as an excuse to delay justice, which could be viewed as acting with political bias or favoritism.
3. Undermining public trust by not conscientiously discharging its duties to enforce judicial decisions in a timely and impartial manner.
The continued failure to act could have broader implications for the constitutional balance of power between the executive and the judiciary, and it risks eroding public confidence in the government’s ability to uphold the law without bias or political interference.
The recent actions of the Kerala state government in its failure to implement the court rulings, specifically in the context of the Malankara Orthodox Church dispute, have raised critical concerns regarding the breach of constitutional duties and the potential threat to the rule of law. The government’s disregard for court verdicts, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s clear decision on the matter, poses a serious threat to democratic governance and the integrity of the legal system.
This study aims to examine the stance of the Kerala government, focusing on how its failure to implement the judiciary’s rulings constitutes a violation of the oath of office and threatens the democratic fabric of the state and nation.
1. The Role of the Judiciary in Upholding the Constitution
The judiciary plays a central role in maintaining the rule of law, interpreting the Constitution, and ensuring justice is served impartially. In a federal system like India’s, the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches is designed to safeguard democracy. The judiciary acts as a check on the arbitrary actions of the government and has the final say on legal disputes. This is particularly important in cases like the Malankara Church dispute, where historical and religious sensitivities intersect with legal frameworks.
1.1 The Supreme Court’s Verdict on the Malankara Church Dispute
The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark decision, settled the long-standing dispute between the two factions of the Malankara Orthodox Church and the Jacobite faction. The verdict explicitly directed that the administration of over 1,000 churches and their properties should rest with the Orthodox Church, based on the 1934 constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Church. This verdict was intended to bring an end to decades of legal disputes and ensure peace and order.
2. The Kerala Government’s Non-compliance with Judicial Directives
Despite the clarity of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Kerala government has repeatedly failed to enforce the court’s directives. Instead of implementing the decision, the government has cited concerns over maintaining law and order, arguing that enforcing the ruling could lead to social unrest. This reluctance to act on judicial directives raises several key concerns:
2.1 Excuse of Law and Order
The Kerala government has consistently stated that its hesitation in enforcing the court’s ruling is due to the potential for violence and disorder within communities. While maintaining law and order is a legitimate concern for any government, using it as a continuous excuse to avoid implementing the judiciary’s decision undermines the legal system. It also creates a dangerous precedent where governments may selectively choose which court rulings to enforce based on perceived political consequences.
2.2 Undermining the Judiciary
By failing to act on the court’s verdict, the Kerala government is effectively undermining the authority of the judiciary. Such actions suggest that the executive branch is above the law or can selectively implement judgments. This undermines the principle of separation of powers, where the executive is bound to respect and implement judicial decisions. In this case, the state’s non-compliance signals a disregard for constitutional obligations and threatens the credibility of the entire legal framework.
3. Violation of the Oath of Office
Upon assuming office, every member of the government, including the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and abide by its laws. The failure to implement court verdicts, especially those from the highest court in the country, is a direct violation of this oath.
3.1 Constitutional Obligations
According to the Constitution of India, the executive is duty-bound to implement court orders. Article 144 of the Constitution states that “all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.” The Kerala government’s actions in delaying or refusing to implement the court’s decision is a breach of this constitutional obligation, which is a violation of the very principles they swore to uphold.
3.2 Breach of Trust
The government’s actions erode the trust that citizens place in their elected representatives. When a government disregards court rulings, it signals to the public that legal institutions are secondary to political expediency. Such actions weaken the very foundation of democracy and lead to a crisis of confidence in both governance and the judicial system.
4. Potential Consequences of Non-compliance
The continued non-compliance by the Kerala government with judicial directives, particularly in high-profile cases like the Malankara Church dispute, can lead to far-reaching consequences for both the state and the nation.
4.1 Loss of Public Faith in Governance
The refusal to implement court orders could result in a loss of public faith in the rule of law and governance. Citizens may begin to question the efficacy of the legal system and the legitimacy of the government itself. If governments selectively implement court orders, it weakens the democratic principles of justice and fairness, which are crucial for the functioning of a stable society.
4.2 Judicial Sanctions
Failure to comply with court orders could result in judicial sanctions against the state government. In extreme cases, this could lead to contempt proceedings, where government officials, including the Chief Minister, may face legal consequences for their actions. This could result in embarrassment for the state government, further damaging its credibility.
4.3 Worsening of the Dispute
The Kerala government’s reluctance to implement the court’s ruling has only exacerbated tensions between the Orthodox Church and Jacobite factions. The delay in enforcement has not only prolonged the dispute but also allowed grievances to fester, potentially leading to further unrest. If the state continues to avoid its responsibility, the situation could spiral into more serious conflict, destabilizing the region.
5. The Role of the Church and Civil Society
The church has expressed its willingness to resolve the dispute through lawful means and has made reasonable recommendations for addressing the issues at hand. However, the government’s failure to act has undermined these efforts and worsened the situation. Civil society and religious institutions play a crucial role in maintaining peace and order, and their efforts to find a resolution must be supported by the government.
6.The Malankara Church remains blessed in this struggle, as divine grace appears to be with it
The state government, as part of the executive in a judicial system, is constitutionally obligated to implement the judgments and directives of the judiciary. However, despite the Supreme Court’s final verdict on the Malankara Church dispute, which has been pending for over eight years, the government has failed to enforce the decision. The current appeal filed by the government, informing the court about this failure, presents an opportunity for the judiciary to scrutinize the government’s reluctance to act.
This situation is reminiscent of the appeal filed by the Jacobite faction against the 1995 verdict, which ultimately led to the 2017 Supreme Court ruling. Even after the Supreme Court issued a final, unappealable judgment and subsequently dismissed any clarifications and curative petitions, and despite multiple execution orders from lower courts, the state government’s continued delay in enforcing the verdict resembles an attempt to undermine the court’s authority by acting as though it has a higher judicial role.
The Supreme Court had previously questioned whether the Kerala government believes it is above the law in a similar context. The current appeal may provide the judiciary with the chance to address those who initiated and prolonged this crisis, as well as those who have enabled it.
7. Conclusion: Upholding the Rule of Law
The Kerala government’s failure to implement the court’s ruling on the Malankara Church dispute constitutes a violation of the rule of law and a breach of its constitutional duties. By disregarding the directives of the judiciary, the government is sending a dangerous message that the executive can choose which laws to follow. This not only undermines the authority of the courts but also threatens the foundations of democracy.
If the government continues on this path, it risks severe consequences, both legally and politically. It is imperative that the Kerala government recognize the gravity of its actions, enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling, and uphold its oath of office to maintain the rule of law and protect the integrity of the nation.
The failure to do so not only discredits the government but also weakens the entire democratic framework, setting a precedent that may be difficult to reverse.
