JUDGMENT : The perpetual fight for managing the affairs of the Malankara Church between the Patriarch faction and Catholicos faction for control of spiritual and temporal management of affairs of the Parish Church has come to an end by the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Varghese & Ors. Vs. St. Peter’s & St.Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church & Ors. [ (2017) 15 SCC 333 ]. Though the legal battle is over, its repercussion still resonates in the corridors of High Court and various civil courts in the State making it a more law and order issue rather than a legal dispute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in clear terms had held that Malankara Church is episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in 1934 Malankara Church Constitution (hereinafter referred to as the “1934 Constitution”) and the said Constitution fully governs the affairs of the Parish Churches. 2. The two factions, Patriarch and Catholicos are bound by the declaration of law in K.S.Varghese case (supra). It appears that the Patriarch faction is not able to relish with the declaration and could not come in terms with reality. The Vicars of the Church under their control were not appointed in terms of the 1934 Constitution. They seek shelter to protect their control over the Parish Church as though the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered to maintain status quo ante in respect of the church under their control and administration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not do so. The plea to maintain status quo ante was also appealed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but it was turned down. The Parish Churches in the State appears to be under the control of both the factions. The dispute is mainly in respect of the Parish Church hitherto administered and managed by the Patriarch faction, and the administration was not by following the 1934 Constitution. The declaration in Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment is in a representative suit. In K.S.Varghese case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the representative character of the suit held that the judgment would bind all Parish Churches under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Sabha. This Court is called upon to decide a dispute in the aforesaid background, in a writ petition for a mandamus, to accord police protection in the light of the declaration of law and direction in K.S.Varghese case (supra). 3. This Court is called upon to decide a dispute in the aforesaid background, in a writ petition for a mandamus, to accord police protection in the light of the declaration of law and direction in K.S.Varghese case (supra). 3. The present writ petition pertains to the affairs of Mulanthuruthy Marthoma Church in Mulanthuruthy Village. Admittedly, the Church is a part of the Malankara Church. There arose a dispute regarding the administration of the affairs of the Church. A scheme suit was filed as O.S.No.1/1124 (ME). A preliminary decree was passed on 11.12.1959 allowing prayer for framing scheme. Pursuant to the preliminary decree, a final decree was passed approving the scheme. Accordingly, the scheme was framed, produced as Ext.P8. Based on K.S.Varghese case (supra), an application was filed to pass a supplementary decree to substitute the scheme by the 1934 Constitution. The District Court allowed the prayer as per Order in I.A. No.624/2007 on 25.10.2019. It appears that a challenge is made against this Order before this Court. The application was mainly resisted by rival Patriarch faction contending that more than 90% of the persons in the Church belonged to Patriarch faction and Bishops of a microscopic minority belonging to Catholicos faction cannot be accepted. This objection was overruled by the District Court relying upon K.S.Varghese case. 4. The resistance of the police protection prayers was on the ground that writ of mandamus cannot be used to enforce the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court so also to enforce supplementary decree passed by the District Court. 5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.Sreekumar appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel Shri K.Vishwanathan appearing for the contesting respondents and Shri K.V.Sohan the learned State Attorney. 6. The petitioners' prayer is mainly to accord police protection to the Vicar appointed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution to conduct religious services and other affairs related to the Church. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Varghese case is a declaration of law regarding the management of affairs of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. There are rival arguments raised before this Court. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be enforced by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This argument is premised under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. There are rival arguments raised before this Court. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be enforced by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This argument is premised under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the party respondents contended that in exercise of the powers conferred on the President of India by clause 1 of Article 142, an order was issued by the President under the title the Supreme Court (Decrees and Orders) Enforcement Order, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Order”). Therefore, the decree of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can only be executed in a manner provided therein. The Enforcement Order refers for enforcement of orders and decree of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by following the provisions of the law time being in force for enforcement of decree and order. The learned State Attorney was also of the view that decree has to be executed through the civil court. He points out the difficulties faced by the State and the Police Officer in identifying the true faction representing the 1934 Constitution. 7. Rebutting all the arguments, Shri S.Sreekumar learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that this is not a case where a dispute has arisen in a claim made for recovery of possession. According to him, the dispute concerning the management of affairs cannot be addressed when there are a law and order issue, by the civil court. The learned Counsel placing reliance on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in a similar instance in W.P. (C).No.25202/2017 and W.P.(C).No.10727/2019, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C).No.25089/2019 argued that the Court has necessary power to enforce the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Varghese case. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C).No.25202/2017 filed by Catholicos, at para.37, had observed as follows: “37. It pays to repeat that the Supreme Court has declared that the 1934 Constitution governs the affairs of the Parish Churches. It binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who have an interest in the Malankara Church. Findings in the earlier representative suit also bind the Parish Churches/Parishioners. The Patriarch, the Court declared, cannot interfere in the governance of Parish Churches by appointing Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests) etc. It binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who have an interest in the Malankara Church. Findings in the earlier representative suit also bind the Parish Churches/Parishioners. The Patriarch, the Court declared, cannot interfere in the governance of Parish Churches by appointing Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests) etc. He cannot, therefore, create parallel administration.” It is further observed at para.39 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in K.S.Varghese case has put an end to all earlier interim arrangements. The Division Bench noting that the dispute resulted in law and order issue, ordered police protection. 9. The Division Bench in W.P.(C).No.10727/2019 also accorded police protection in a similar dispute. This Court in W.P.(C).No.25089/2019 in similar circumstances accorded police protection. 10. The rule of law is not just about the Government. It requires also that citizen should respect and comply with legal norms even if they disagree with them. When there is a dispute and, the conflict is resolved by judicial decision, the rule of law demands respect to the judicial decision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in K.S.Varghese case (supra) put an end to the whole controversy regarding the dispute. The resistance made before the District Court as against passing the supplementary decree shows that the Patriarch faction is not prepared to give up. The resistance has become a law and order issue. There appears to be a patronised resistance in regard to many churches as revealed from many writ petitions filed before this Court. Whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be enforced through a civil court or not, becomes an academic question when issues boil upto such levels beyond the manageable stands of the civil court. The power and authority of the civil court to enforce the decree would exist when something remains as executable. On the declaration of law by the Supreme Court, what is expected from the Patriarch faction is its obedience of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment to uphold the rule of law. When the stream of law is attempted to be diverted by repeated disobedience resulting in a law and order situation, the constitutional court can alone render justice. There is a subtle difference between the implementation and the enforcement. Implementation is in the nature of execution which normally, the civil court resolves to implement its decree or order. When the stream of law is attempted to be diverted by repeated disobedience resulting in a law and order situation, the constitutional court can alone render justice. There is a subtle difference between the implementation and the enforcement. Implementation is in the nature of execution which normally, the civil court resolves to implement its decree or order. Enforcement has different facets which take in the implementation by preventive or coercive actions or maintaining the law and order through the force of law. 11. Law and order is a matter of governance. The civil court has no role in itself to interfere or supervise the matter of governance. The civil court has only limited jurisdiction and power. It can order police assistance as an aid to execute the decree. When nothing remains as executable, the executing power of the civil court cannot be invoked for the police protection alone. The constitutional courts are not only the courts of arbiter resolving disputes but also courts protecting rights guaranteed to the citizen. The constitutional courts have a duty to maintain and uphold the rule of law. When there is a challenge to the rule of law by a citizen who is bound to obey the same, the Court can step in by invoking its power of mandamus. The Court has to consider whether any effective measures are available otherwise. If there are no other measures, this Court has to invoke its power of writ for the reasons of justice. 12. The history of writ of mandamus refers to the use of mandamus as a prerogative writ to be used when there is no legal remedy available. Lord Mansfield, in Rex V. Barker, et Al'. [(1265) Hilary Term, 2 Geo. 3 B.R. 1762] in as early as 1762 referred the scope of writ of mandamus as a prerogative writ when there is no specific legal remedy. It is opined in R.V. Barker as follows: “Lord Mansfield – A mandamus is a prerogative writ; to the aid of which the subject is in titled, upon a proper case previously shown to the satisfaction of the Court. The original nature of the writ, and the end for which it was framed, direct upon what occasions it should be used. It was introduced, to prevent disorder from a failure of justice, and defect of police. The original nature of the writ, and the end for which it was framed, direct upon what occasions it should be used. It was introduced, to prevent disorder from a failure of justice, and defect of police. Therefore it ought to be used upon all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought be one.”(sic) The police protection jurisdiction exercised by this Court invoking writ of mandamus is for the reason that there is no specific legal remedy available to the party. Lord Mansfield ruling in Rex.v.Barker would justify such exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. Interestingly, Lord Mansfield referred to the power of the court for issuing writ of mandamus in a dispute related to meeting-house, for the public worship of God by congregation of Protestant Dissenters and elucidated the scope of mandamus in such dispute as follows: “Where there is a right to execute an office, perform a service, or exercise a franchise; (more especially, if it be in a matter of public concern, or attended with profit;) and a person is kept out of possession, or dispossessed of such right, and has no other specific legal remedy; this Court ought to assist by a mandamus; upon reasons of justice, as the writ expresses – Nos A. B. debitam et festinam justitiam in hac parte fieri violentes, ut est justum; and upon reasons of public policy, to preserve peace, order, and good government.” 13. The law and order is part of the field of enforcement and, its domain is beyond the manageable standards of the civil court. Therefore, the constitutional court alone has the power to enforce the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court when there is a blatant breach of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court resulting in it as a law and order issue. The judgment in K.S.Varghese case (supra) was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3.7.2017. The fourth petitioner has been appointed as a Vicar by the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kochi Diocese. The petitioners 5 to 7 are the Assistant Vicars appointed by the same authority. The party respondents have no case that they have been appointed as per the 1934 Constitution. The fourth petitioner has been appointed as a Vicar by the Diocesan Metropolitan of Kochi Diocese. The petitioners 5 to 7 are the Assistant Vicars appointed by the same authority. The party respondents have no case that they have been appointed as per the 1934 Constitution. Their case is that when a scheme has been framed pursuant to the decree of the civil court, any further change can only be effected by varying the scheme and the Constitution thereon. It is their case that the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment can be given effect only by amending the constitution based on the scheme in a proper manner. The dispute has been resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court perpetually. By declaration of the law, all that happened by way of decree or order of the civil court have become redundant in as much as that parties are bound to follow the declaration of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, those orders of the civil court will have to yield to the directions given in the K.S.Varghese case. No party can claim that they would follow the civil court judgment and not the direction of the Apex Court in K.S.Varghese case. The subsequent judgment in the representative suit in K.S.Varghese case would bind the parties in respect to the Malankara Church and not the orders of the civil court contrary to it. Therefore, any other contention to resist enforcement of declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will have to be repelled and negatived. 14. In the result, this Court has to grant police protection to the petitioners as prayed. The police shall give effective protection to the petitioners to conduct religious service in Mulanthuruthy Marthoma Church as against any obstruction being caused by party respondents and others. The police shall ensure that no persons other than the petitioners are allowed to conduct religious services in the Church. The police shall ensure that the affairs of the church managed by the petitioners are not obstructed by the respondents. If any force is required to take over management and entrust the same to the petitioners, it shall also be done by the police. However, it is made clear that all parishioners are free to attend the services of the Church and the petitioners shall not deny them any religious services. If any force is required to take over management and entrust the same to the petitioners, it shall also be done by the police. However, it is made clear that all parishioners are free to attend the services of the Church and the petitioners shall not deny them any religious services. The police shall take necessary measures as above until peace is achieved. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed.