2025 INSC 622 : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/unoe/
Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors.)
Decided on: May 02, 2025
Coram: Bela M. Trivedi, *Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Church of South India (CSI) – Validity of Synod Meeting, Constitutional and Bye-Law Amendments, Election of Moderator and Office Bearers, Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, Interim Relief.
Facts
The case arose from disputes within the Church of South India (CSI) concerning a Special Synod Meeting held on 07.03.2022, which passed constitutional and bye-law amendments and conducted elections for office bearers, including the Moderator. The amendments included increasing the clergy retirement age from 67 to 70 years and altering qualifications for General Secretary and Treasurer. Respondents challenged the meeting’s validity, amendments, and elections in the Madras High Court, alleging procedural irregularities. The Single Judge found the Moderator’s election invalid and ordered a fresh election but upheld other elections. The Division Bench partly reversed this, declaring the Synod meeting invalid and appointing a Committee of Administrators. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was the Special Synod Meeting of 07.03.2022 validly convened?
- Were the constitutional amendments (e.g., retirement age increase) valid?
- Were the bye-law amendments (e.g., qualifications for office bearers) valid?
- Was the election of the Moderator valid?
- Were the elections of other office bearers (Deputy Moderator, General Secretary, Treasurer) valid?
- Was the appointment of administrators by the Division Bench justified?
- Did the absence of leave under Order 1 Rule 8, CPC affect the proceedings?
- Was the interim relief granted appropriate?
Holding and Reasoning:
- Validity of Synod Meeting: The Supreme Court held the 07.03.2022 Synod Meeting was duly convened, supported by the Special Executive Committee’s decision (12.01.2022), 25 days’ notice, and attendance of 326/359 members. The Division Bench’s finding of invalidity was set aside as it overlooked these facts.
- Constitutional Amendments: The amendments, including the retirement age increase to 70 years, were invalid due to non-compliance with Chapter XIII, Rule 2 of the CSI Constitution, requiring a 2/3rd majority ratification by Diocesan Councils. Ratifications by Coimbatore and Medak Dioceses were procedurally deficient, rendering the amendments unenforceable. The interim injunction restraining their implementation was upheld.
- Bye-Law Amendments: The bye-law amendments, concerning qualifications for General Secretary and Treasurer, were valid, as they were unanimously passed in a duly convened Synod meeting per Chapter XIII, Rule 3. The Division Bench’s contrary findings were set aside.
- Moderator’s Election: The election of Dharmaraj Rasalam as Moderator was invalid because the incumbent was over 67 years during the term, ineligible under the unamended CSI Constitution (retirement age 67). The Single Judge’s order for a fresh election under a retired High Court Judge as Election Officer was sustained.
- Other Office Bearers’ Elections: The elections of Deputy Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer were valid. The Supreme Court found that the addition of 15 (instead of 10) Synod nominations to the electoral college had minimal impact and did not vitiate the process, reversing the Division Bench’s finding of a flawed electoral college. The Single Judge’s order was restored, subject to pending suits.
- Appointment of Administrators: The Division Bench’s appointment of a Committee of Administrators (retired judges) was not upheld. The Single Judge’s appointment of a retired High Court Judge as Election Officer for the Moderator’s election was deemed sufficient, aligning with the need for limited judicial intervention.
- Order 1 Rule 8, CPC: The Court clarified that leave under Order 1 Rule 8 is not mandatory for instituting a suit or granting interim relief but is crucial for the binding effect of orders on CSI’s membership. Its absence is a curable defect, and leave can be sought at any stage. The Division Bench’s dismissal of appeals (O.S.A. Nos. 236-238/2023) for lack of leave and upholding others (O.S.A. Nos. 188, 190, 192/2023) due to a pending application were affirmed. The Single Judge’s findings on this were quashed.
- Interim Relief: The Court upheld the interim injunction restraining implementation of the 07.03.2022 resolutions on retirement age and tenure until the suits are disposed of. Observations were prima facie and not to prejudice the merits of pending suits or CSI’s amending powers.
Disposition:
- Appeals disposed of.
- Division Bench orders (27.02.2024 and 12.04.2024) set aside to the extent specified.
- Single Judge’s order (05.09.2023) restored, except for findings on Order 1 Rule 8, which were quashed.
- No reflection on the merits of pending civil suits.
Key Precedents Cited:
- Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 634
- Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491
- Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik, (2011) 13 SCC 774
- Krishnan Vasudevan v. Shareef, (2005) 12 SCC 180
- Executive Committee of the Synod Church of South India v. Rt. Rev. Dr. V. Devasahayam, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 1506
Significance:
The ruling clarifies procedural requirements for religious trust governance, the scope of judicial intervention in ecclesiastical disputes, and the application of Order 1 Rule 8, CPC in representative suits. It balances the autonomy of religious institutions with adherence to their constitutional frameworks, ensuring fair elections and valid amendments.
Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)
- What was the primary issue addressed by the Supreme Court in Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.?
a) Validity of a criminal conviction against the CSI Moderator
b) Validity of the Special Synod Meeting and amendments to the CSI Constitution
c) Appointment of a new Moderator without elections
d) Dissolution of the Church of South India (CSI)
Answer: b) Validity of the Special Synod Meeting and amendments to the CSI Constitution
Explanation: The case centered on the validity of the 07.03.2022 Synod Meeting, constitutional and bye-law amendments, and elections of CSI office bearers. - What was the Supreme Court’s finding regarding the Special Synod Meeting held on 07.03.2022?
a) It was invalid due to lack of notice
b) It was duly convened with procedural compliance
c) It was postponed indefinitely
d) It lacked a quorum and was void
Answer: b) It was duly convened with procedural compliance
Explanation: The Court found the meeting valid based on the Special Executive Committee’s resolution (12.01.2022), 25 days’ notice, and attendance of 326/359 members. - Why were the constitutional amendments to increase the clergy retirement age from 67 to 70 years deemed invalid?
a) They were not proposed by the Synod
b) They lacked ratification by 2/3rd of Diocesan Councils due to procedural irregularities
c) They violated the Indian Constitution
d) They were rejected by all Diocesan Councils
Answer: b) They lacked ratification by 2/3rd of Diocesan Councils due to procedural irregularities
Explanation: Ratifications by Coimbatore and Medak Dioceses were procedurally deficient, failing the mandatory 2/3rd majority requirement under Chapter XIII, Rule 2. - What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the bye-law amendments regarding qualifications of General Secretary and Treasurer?
a) They were invalid due to improper convening of the Synod
b) They were valid as unanimously passed in a duly convened meeting
c) They were deferred for further review
d) They required ratification by Diocesan Councils
Answer: b) They were valid as unanimously passed in a duly convened meeting
Explanation: The amendments were upheld under Chapter XIII, Rule 3, as they were passed unanimously in the valid 07.03.2022 Synod Meeting. - What was the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the election of the CSI Moderator?
a) It was valid as the incumbent was eligible
b) It was invalid due to the incumbent’s age exceeding the retirement limit
c) It was postponed until new amendments were ratified
d) It was upheld subject to criminal case outcomes
Answer: b) It was invalid due to the incumbent’s age exceeding the retirement limit
Explanation: The Moderator, aged over 67 during the term, was ineligible under the unamended CSI Constitution, rendering the election invalid. - How did the Supreme Court rule on the elections of the Deputy Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer?
a) They were invalid due to a flawed electoral college
b) They were valid but subject to pending suits
c) They were set aside for fresh elections
d) They were irrelevant to the case
Answer: b) They were valid but subject to pending suits
Explanation: The Court found the additional 15 Synod nominations had minimal impact, upholding the elections but subject to the outcome of pending suits. - What was the Supreme Court’s stance on the appointment of a Committee of Administrators?
a) It upheld the Division Bench’s appointment of administrators
b) It replaced administrators with a new committee
c) It sustained the Single Judge’s appointment of a retired High Court Judge as Election Officer
d) It rejected any external oversight
Answer: c) It sustained the Single Judge’s appointment of a retired High Court Judge as Election Officer
Explanation: The Court found the Election Officer sufficient for the Moderator’s election, rejecting the Division Bench’s broader Committee of Administrators. - What did the Supreme Court hold regarding the applicability of Order 1 Rule 8, CPC?
a) It is mandatory for filing a suit and granting interim relief
b) It is a procedural requirement, curable, and leave can be sought at any stage
c) It does not apply to religious trust disputes
d) It bars interim relief until leave is granted
Answer: b) It is a procedural requirement, curable, and leave can be sought at any stage
Explanation: The Court clarified that Order 1 Rule 8 is not a prerequisite for interim relief but affects the binding nature of orders until leave is granted. - What interim relief was granted by the Supreme Court?
a) Dissolution of the CSI Synod
b) Injunction restraining implementation of 07.03.2022 resolutions on retirement age and tenure
c) Appointment of a new Moderator
d) Suspension of all CSI elections
Answer: b) Injunction restraining implementation of 07.03.2022 resolutions on retirement age and tenure
Explanation: The Court upheld the interim injunction until the disposal of pending suits, ensuring no effect to the invalid amendments. - What was the Supreme Court’s approach to the merits of the pending civil suits?
a) It decided the suits on their merits
b) It made prima facie observations without prejudicing the suits
c) It dismissed the suits as non-maintainable
d) It directed their immediate disposal
Answer: b) It made prima facie observations without prejudicing the suits
Explanation: The Court emphasized that its findings were prima facie and would not affect the final adjudication of the suits.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- What was the core dispute in Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.?
The dispute involved the validity of a Special Synod Meeting held on 07.03.2022 by the Church of South India (CSI), the constitutional and bye-law amendments passed therein (e.g., increasing clergy retirement age from 67 to 70 years), and the elections of the Moderator and other office bearers. Respondents challenged procedural irregularities, leading to litigation in the Madras High Court and an appeal to the Supreme Court. - Why did the Supreme Court find the Special Synod Meeting of 07.03.2022 valid?
The Court found the meeting valid because it was supported by a resolution from the Special Executive Committee (12.01.2022), a 25-day notice period, and attendance of 326 out of 359 members. The Division Bench’s finding that the meeting was not properly convened was overturned due to these procedural compliances. - What made the constitutional amendments invalid?
The amendments, particularly the increase in clergy retirement age to 70 years, were invalid because they lacked ratification by 2/3rd of the Diocesan Councils, as required by Chapter XIII, Rule 2 of the CSI Constitution. Procedural irregularities in the Coimbatore and Medak Dioceses’ ratifications rendered the process deficient. - Why were the bye-law amendments upheld?
The bye-law amendments, concerning qualifications for General Secretary and Treasurer, were valid because they were unanimously passed in the duly convened 07.03.2022 Synod Meeting, as per Chapter XIII, Rule 3. The minutes confirmed unanimous approval, and no contradictory evidence was presented. - Why was the Moderator’s election declared invalid?
The Moderator’s election was invalid because the incumbent, Dharmaraj Rasalam, was over 67 years old during the term (2020-2023), exceeding the retirement age under the unamended CSI Constitution. The amendment increasing the age to 70 years was unenforceable due to invalid ratification. - What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the elections of other office bearers?
The elections of the Deputy Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer were upheld as valid, as the addition of 15 (instead of 10) Synod nominations to the electoral college had minimal impact and did not vitiate the process. These elections remain subject to the outcome of pending suits. - Why did the Supreme Court reject the Division Bench’s Committee of Administrators?
The Court found the Single Judge’s appointment of a retired High Court Judge as Election Officer sufficient to oversee the Moderator’s fresh election. The broader Committee of Administrators was deemed unnecessary, aligning with minimal judicial intervention in CSI’s governance. - How did the Supreme Court address the applicability of Order 1 Rule 8, CPC?
The Court clarified that Order 1 Rule 8 is a procedural requirement, not mandatory for filing suits or granting interim relief. Leave can be sought at any stage, but its absence affects the binding nature of orders on CSI’s membership. The Court affirmed the Division Bench’s rulings on related appeals and quashed the Single Judge’s findings on this issue. - What interim relief was granted by the Supreme Court?
The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the implementation of the 07.03.2022 resolutions concerning the clergy retirement age and tenure of elected members until the disposal of the pending civil suits, ensuring the status quo pending final adjudication. - Did the Supreme Court decide the merits of the underlying civil suits?
No, the Court made prima facie observations to resolve the appeals and emphasized that its findings would not prejudice the merits of the pending civil suits, which are to be adjudicated independently by the trial court. - What is the significance of this judgment for religious trusts?
The judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in the governance of religious trusts, particularly for constitutional amendments and elections. It balances judicial oversight with institutional autonomy, ensuring fair processes while respecting the trust’s internal mechanisms. - Can the CSI Synod still amend its Constitution following this judgment?
Yes, the Court explicitly stated that the Synod retains its power to amend the CSI Constitution. The ruling is limited to the legal issues of the 07.03.2022 amendments and elections, without interfering with the Synod’s broader amending authority.