Supreme Court Invalidates Moderator’s Election In Church Of South India | Finds Amendment To Retirement Age Was Not Duly Ratified | Holds Election Process Lacks Legitimacy And Integrity
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the elections of the Moderator and other Office Bearers of the Church of South India (CSI) Synod were invalid, observing that the electoral college was flawed and the constitutional amendments were not ratified in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The Court quashed the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court and reinstated the directions issued by the Single Judge, subject to modifications. It directed that fresh elections be conducted under the supervision of a designated retired High Court Judge.
The litigation arose from disputes regarding the administration, elections, and constitutional amendments within the Church of South India (CSI), an unregistered religious body formed in 1947. While the CSI oversees ecclesiastical matters, the Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA), a company registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, manages its secular affairs.
The controversy was triggered by the election of Most Rev. Dharmaraj Rasalam as Moderator on 11.10.2020 for a three-year term. Allegations were raised concerning pending criminal cases against him. Plaintiffs, who were long-standing members and former office bearers of CSI, filed four civil suits between January 2022 and January 2023 before the Madras High Court. These suits questioned the validity of the Moderator’s election, challenged amendments to the Constitution and bye-laws of CSI, and sought judicial intervention to restore procedural compliance.
Suit 1: C.S. No. 86 of 2022 Filed on 03.01.2022, the plaintiffs sought framing of a scheme under Section 92 CPC, removal of the incumbent Moderator, and directions to conduct fresh elections. They also filed five interim applications seeking to declare proposed constitutional amendments void, suspend the Moderator, and appoint an interim administrator.
Suit 2: C.S. No. 45 of 2022 Filed on 01.03.2022, it assailed the Special Synod Meeting held on 07–08 March 2022, alleging it was convened in violation of CSI’s Constitution. Interim relief was sought through two applications seeking to restrain implementation of proposed amendments.
Suit 3: C.S. No. 274 of 2022 Filed on 20.12.2022, this suit challenged the Synod’s resolution increasing the retirement age of bishops to 70 years and sought appointment of a former High Court Judge to administer elections. Interim applications sought injunctions against the resolution and the election process.
Suit 4: C.S. No. 7 of 2023 Filed on 02.01.2023, the plaintiffs contested the notification dated 27.12.2022 implementing the constitutional amendments, and sought interim relief including an injunction against the upcoming election and appointment of an interim administrator.
Single Judge Orders On 05.09.2023, the Single Judge passed a common interim order across suits. It was held that the Special Synod Meeting of 07.03.2022 was prima facie validly convened. However, the ratification of amendments by diocesan councils was found to be deficient due to procedural lapses in the Coimbatore, Medak, and Karnataka Central Dioceses. Consequently, the Court held that the constitutional amendments could not be enforced. The election of the Moderator was declared prima facie invalid, while elections to other offices were conditionally upheld due to their minimal procedural impact. The Court declined to appoint an interim administrator but ordered re-election for the Moderator under the supervision of Justice V. Bharathidasan (Retd.).
Division Bench Appeals and Orders Multiple Original Side Appeals (OSAs) were filed challenging the Single Judge’s findings. On 27.02.2024, the Division Bench dismissed OSAs concerning enhancement of retirement age and upheld the injunction against implementation of disputed resolutions, ruling that the Synod Meeting was not properly convened. On 12.04.2024, it declared the entire electoral process vitiated due to the flawed composition of the electoral college and appointed a two-member Committee of Administrators (Justice R. Balasubramanian and Justice V. Bharathidasan, Retd.) to conduct fresh elections.
The Supreme Court began by addressing the question of the validity of the Special Synod Meeting of 07.03.2022. The Court stated: “We are of the considered opinion that the Special Meeting of the Synod on 07.03.2022 was duly convened in accordance with the powers vested in the Executive Committee and the Moderator under the CSI Constitution”.
The Court highlighted that the Executive Committee had resolved to summon the Special Meeting and authorised the Moderator and other officers to fix the date and venue, directing the General Secretary to circulate the proposed amendments to all Bishops for onward transmission to Synod members. It recorded: “This chain of communication and procedural compliance further substantiates the fact that due process was followed in relation to the convening and conduct of the meeting”.
With regard to allegations that the agenda was not included in the meeting notice, the Court referred to email exchanges showing that objections were about the non-enclosure of documents, not the absence of a resolution. It noted: “The complaint was not that no resolution was passed by the special executive committee for convening the meeting, but the complaint was that copies of the proposed amendments and bye-laws were not enclosed along with the meeting notice”.
Addressing the ratification process for the amendment to increase the retirement age from 67 to 70 years, the Court stated: “Out of 359 members, 326 members were present at the Special Synod Meeting held on 07.03.2022… 289 members voted for the proposal for an increase in the retirement age and 37 voted against it”.
The Court addressed objections related to the Coimbatore Diocese and found: “Even if it is held that all 151 members of the Diocese who did not attend/were unable to attend because of short notice voted against the ratification, the ratification would still have been 221:166. Thus, the finding that the meeting was invalid for lack of notice is incorrect. It is also important to note here that no absentee member of the Coimbatore diocese has challenged the meeting procedure”.
On the Medak Diocese, the Court recorded: “534 members out of which 378 attended and 260 voted in favour of the amendments, 15 voted against and remaining abstained”.
On the amendments to the Bye-laws, the Court noted: “The amendments to the bye-laws of the CSI Synod were passed unanimously. This unanimous passage at a duly convened meeting supports the validity of the amendments to the bye-laws”.
It further clarified: “We are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge with regards to the validity of the amendments... The findings of the learned Division Bench regarding the validity of the amendments to the bye-laws are hereby set aside”.
Regarding the election of the Moderator, the Court recorded: “The core issue for consideration for the post of Moderator is that the nominated Bishop ‘should not be due to retire during the ensuing term.’ In the present case... it cannot be said that it was a fair nomination and hence, lacks legitimacy and integrity in the election process”.
On the issue of ratification of the amendment extending retirement age: “Even after considering the amendment... by which the age limit for retirement was increased to 70 years... the said amendment is not enforceable since the same was not duly ratified which makes the said amendment... invalid”.
On the election of other office bearers, the Court considered the composition of the electoral college and voting margins, stating: “None of the bishops and presbyters from the 20 Dioceses had completed the age of 67 as on 13.01.2023... The margin of victory of each of the three office bearers is significant... votes of the five additional members did not impact the result”.
Accordingly, it concluded: “The elections conducted for the Deputy Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer shall be deemed valid and will continue to hold legal sanctity but will be subject to the outcome of the suits”.
The Court addressed the power of the Court to grant relief under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC and held: “Once it is held that permission to sue under Order 1 Rule 8 can be obtained at any point of time and it is not a pre-condition. It automatically follows that the Court's power to grant interim orders, even before granting permission under Order 1 Rule 8, cannot be curtailed”.
In conclusion, the Court stated: “Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from giving effect to the resolution passed in the meeting convened on 7th and 8th March 2022, concerning the fixation of the upper age for the Bishops and tenure of the elected members until the final disposal of the pending suits”.
It further stated: “However, it is made clear that the observations contained in this order are only prima facie in nature and shall not be construed as a reflection on the merits of the aforementioned civil suits, which shall be decided independently at the stage of final adjudication”.
The Supreme Court, having examined the materials on record and heard counsel at length, issued the following directives:
“In light of the foregoing reasons, the following orders passed by the subordinate courts are hereby quashed by this Court: the appeals stand disposed of and the common order dated 05.09.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in O.A. No. 818/2022, O.A. No. 819/2022 and A. No. 5961/2022 in C.S. No. 274/2022 and O.A. No. 21/2023, O.A. No. 22/2023 and O.A. No. 190/2023 in C.S. No. 7/2023, findings regarding Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC are hereby quashed to such extent.”
“Furthermore, the impugned orders dated 12.04.2024 passed by learned Division Bench in O.S.A Nos. 198/2023, 31-32/2024 and impugned order dated 27.02.2024 passed by learned Division Bench in O.S.A Nos. 69/2022, 189/2023, 191/2023, 204-205/2023 are hereby set aside to the said extent.”
The Court then imposed a restraint on the implementation of resolutions passed during the disputed meeting:
“Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from giving effect to the resolution passed in the meeting convened on 7th and 8th March 2022, concerning the fixation of the upper age for the Bishops and tenure of the elected members until the final disposal of the pending suits.”
The Bench clarified the scope and effect of its observations:
“However, it is made clear that the observations contained in this order are only prima facie in nature and shall not be construed as a reflection on the merits of the aforementioned civil suits, which shall be decided independently at the stage of final adjudication.”
In addition, the Court emphasized that the amending authority remains with the Synod:
“Furthermore, we recognise that the power to amend the CSI Constitution rests with the Synod, and nothing in this order should be interpreted as interference with that amending power. The Court’s ruling herein is limited to the legal issues presented before us and does not constitute a determination on the substantive merits of the underlying disputes.”
Regarding the previous elections, the Court stated:
“The order previously passed by the learned Single Judge shall stand restored and will continue to remain in force. Consequently, the elections conducted for the other office bearers—namely, the Deputy Moderator, the General Secretary, and the Treasurer—shall be deemed valid and will continue to hold legal sanctity but will be subject to the outcome of the suits.”
In reference to the Moderator's election, the Court ordered a corrective process:
“Since the election of the Moderator is declared as invalid and it is not in the interest of 4.5 million members of the CSI that the institution functions without a Moderator until the final disposal of the suit... These facts warrant appointing an election officer to conduct the Moderator’s election for that term. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge regarding the appointment and role of retired High Court judge in the election process is sustained.”
With respect to procedural compliance under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC, the Bench ruled:
“Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not prescribe any stage at which the application can be filed... While it is not a mandatory pre-condition for the institution of a suit or for the granting of interim relief, it is a procedural requirement that cannot be disregarded altogether which bears upon the binding nature of any orders issued.”
“Therefore, while the absence of Order 1 Rule 8 is a curable defect, its compliance remains crucial to ensure the enforceability and representative effect of the orders passed. Leave under Order 1 Rule 8 may be obtained at any stage of the proceedings; however, it is emphasized that until such leave is formally granted, the orders passed from these proceedings may not be considered binding upon the entirety of the membership of the CSI.”
Lastly, the Court affirmed specific findings: “We concur with the findings of the learned Division Bench passed in O.S.A. Nos. 236, 237 and 238 of 2023, insofar as it has been held that, in the absence of any application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC before the learned Court—and in view of the fact that the application, if any, was subsequently withdrawn which was filed in C.S. No. 274/2022—the aforesaid appeals filed against the interim order cannot be sustained and therefore, are dismissed.”
Case Title: Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 622
Case Number: SLP (C) Nos. 9079–9081 of 2024 & Ors.
Bench: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
[Read/Download order]
