2025 INSC 622 SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 1 of 62

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024

DR. VIMAL SUKUMAR …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

D. LAWRENCE & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9250 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12500 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12503-12505 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12501-12502 of 2024

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 2 of 62

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10044-10046 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22564 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11016 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10857-10858 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12208 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12506-12508 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22567-22569 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22566 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22541-22546 of 2024

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16144 of 2024

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 3 of 62

J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeals are arising out of the two impugned

orders dated 27.02.2024 and 12.04.2024 by which Madras High

Court (“hereinafter High Court”) declared re-election of all the

office bearers since it was held that the electoral college itself was

flawed and appointed committee of administrators to conduct re-

elections. Furthermore, the High Court held that the amendments

to the bye-laws had not been carried out in accordance with the

procedure prescribed in the Constitution of Church of South India

(“hereinafter CSI”) and it was held that the Special Meeting of

the Synod held on 7

th

and 8

th

March 2022 was not duly convened.

3. The history of litigation goes back to the filing of the four

civil suits under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and

Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“hereinafter

CPC”) along with interim applications seeking interim reliefs.

The learned Single Bench passed various orders in the interim

applications which were challenged before the learned Division

Bench and the aforesaid impugned orders were passed.

4. The aforesaid suits relate to the management and

administration of the CSI, an un-registered body of persons

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 4 of 62

which is in-charge of the functions of the protestant Churches in

Southern India and in Sri Lanka. This un-registered body of

persons christened as CSI came into existence on the 27

th

September 1947 and it is governed by a set of Rules that is called

the Constitution of the CSI.

5. Disputes often arise regarding the management and

conduct of the elections for various posts of Office Bearers in the

CSI and its other organizations called Church of South India

Trust Association. While CSI looks after the ecclesiastical

functions, the Church of South India Trust Association, which is

a Company registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act,

2013 (Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956) takes care of the

secular functions and administration of the properties. All the

properties of the Church vest in the Church of South India Trust

Association.

FACTUAL MATRIX

6. The facts leading to the institution of the aforesaid suits –

the plaintiffs who are six in number are the members of the

Church for a considerably long period as claimed by them.

Furthermore, it is contended that plaintiffs had held certain

crucial positions in the management of the CSI in the past.

Dispute arose when the 3

rd

defendant in the suit, Most Rev.

Dharmaraj Rasalam, was elected as a Moderator in the election

held on 11.10.2020 for the three years period ending on

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 5 of 62

11.10.2023. The plaintiffs contended that the 3

rd

defendant is

accused of several criminal offences and almost ten FIRs are

pending against him on the date of his nomination as the

Moderator.

7. Subsequently, the first suit C.S. No. 86 of 2022 came to

be filed on 03.01.2022 fundamentally contending that a scheme

be framed to set out the conditions for the appointment, terms of

office. They further stated that Constitution of the CSI does not

prescribe any qualification or dis-qualification for the post of

Moderator which has led to persons with criminal antecedents to

participate in the elections and occupy the post of the Moderator,

which according to the plaintiffs, is the most powerful post in the

CSI. The plaintiffs in the C.S. No. 86 of 2022 prayed for the

following reliefs:

a. Frame a scheme under Sections 92(g) and (h)

of the Code, setting out the conditions for

appointment and terms of office and prescribing

disqualification for the members of the Synod of the

1

st

defendant.

b. Removing the 3

rd

defendant from the office of

Moderator of the Church of South India, the 1

st

defendant herein,

c. Consequently, removing the 3

rd

defendant as

the Chairman of the CSITA, the 2

nd

defendant

herein,

d. Directing the 1

st

defendant to hold fresh

elections to the office of the Moderator of the Synod

of the 1

st

defendant,

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 6 of 62

e. And to grant such further reliefs as this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and

circumstances of this case.

8. Along with the filing of the aforesaid suit, plaintiffs also

filed five applications in C.S. No. 86/2022 seeking following

prayers:

a. A. No. 54/2023 - ….. To declare as invalid,

illegal, null and void, all the proposed amendments

of the CIS Constitution proposed by the CSI Synod

at its meeting dated 07.03.2022 ……..

b. A. No. 55/2023 - …..To stay the operation of

the proposed amendments of the CIS Constitution

proposed by the CSI, Synod at its meeting dated

07.03.2022…..

c. A. No. 56/2023 - …..To suspend the 3rd

respondent from acting as the Moderator of the 1st

respondent, Church of South India.

d. A. No. 57/2023 - …..To appoint an Interim

Administrator to take over and manage the affairs

of the 1st respondent, Church of South India,

including to conduct the upcoming elections.

e. A. No. 2584/2023 - Seeking appointment of

an interim administrative committee headed by a

Retired Judge of this Court to manage the affairs of

the Synod till the disposal of the suit.

9. Meanwhile, a Meeting Notice was issued on 10.02.2022

by the General Secretary of the CSI Synod convening a Special

Meeting of the Synod on 7

th

and 8

th

March of 2022 at Bishop

Heber College, Trichy. Further, it was claimed that the decision

to hold a Special Meeting of the Synod had been taken in the

Executive Committee of the Synod held on 12.01.2022 which led

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 7 of 62

to the issuance of the Meeting Notice. In the light of the

preceding decision the second suit C.S. No. 45/2022 was filed

on 01.03.2022 by certain members of the Church of South India

praying for the following reliefs:

a. Declaring the Notice convening the Special

Synod Meeting of the 1

st

Defendant on 7

th

and 8

th

March 2022 or such other adjourned date, as

illegal, improper and as such void;

b. Permanent Injunction restraining the

Defendants, their men, agents, servants,

representatives or any person claiming through

them or under them, from in any manner amending

the Constitution and/or Bye Laws of CSI at the

Special Meeting of the Synod of the 1

st

Defendant on

7

th

and 8

th

March 2022 or such other adjourned

date, convened and conducted without following

due process and/or procedure as per the

Constitution and Bye Laws of CSI;

c. Permanent Injunction restraining the

Defendants, their men, agents, servants,

representatives or any person claiming through

them or under them, from in any manner putting any

Resolutions or decisions concerning Amendments

to the Constitution or Bye Laws of CSI to vote at any

Meeting whatsoever of the Synod or any of the

Committees of bodies of the CSI, other than through

the process of Secret Ballot;

d. Permanent Injunction restraining the

Defendants their men, agents, servants

representatives of any person claiming through

them or under them from proceeding to implement

any decision/Resolution taken/passed at any

Meeting held by the Synod or any of the Committees

or bodies of the CSI, without first circulating the

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 8 of 62

Minutes of such Meetings at least one week prior to

implementation of such decisions/resolutions;

e. Mandatory Injunction directing the

Defendants their men, agents, servants,

representatives of any person claiming through

them or under them to convene all and any meetings

held by the Synod or any of the Committees or

bodies of the CSI only after providing 21 days clear

notice to all the participants/members/attendees,

along with a detailed agenda for such Meetings;

f. Permanent Injunction restraining the

Defendants their men, agents, servants,

representatives or any person claiming through

them or under them from in any manner

Functioning or acting in any manner whatsoever in

contravention to the ‘Basis of Union’ and ‘The

Governing Principles of the Church’, as embodied

in the Constitution of the Church of South India;

g. Costs of the Suit;

h. Such other Order or Orders as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances

of the case and thereby render Justice.

10. Along with the said suit (C.S. No. 45 of 2022), two

applications O.A. Nos. 114 & 115 of 2022 had been filed seeking

interim reliefs as follows:

a. Pass an Order of Interim Injunction

restraining the Respondents, their men, agents,

servants, representatives or any person claiming

through them or under them from in any manner

conducting or holding the Special Meeting of the

Synod on 7

th

and 8

th

March 2022 at Trichy or on any

other date or at any other place, pending disposal

of the Suit, and pass such further or other Order or

Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 9 of 62

proper in the circumstances of the case and thereby

render Justice;

b. Pass an Order of Interim Injunction

restraining the Respondents, their men, agents,

servants, representatives or any person claiming

through them or under them, from in any manner

bringing before the Synod any proposal or

proposals for any alteration or addition to the

Constitution and Bye-Laws of the Church of South

India by Resolution(s) at the special meeting of the

Synod and at any Meeting whatsoever of the Synod

of the Church of South India, other than through the

process of Secret Ballot and pass such further or

other Orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case,

and thereby render Justice.

11. Following a period of vacancy (interregnum) within the

Church of South India Synod, the office bearers convened a

special Synod Council in Trichirapalli on 07.03.2022 and passed

certain amendments proposed to the Constitution of the Church

of South India including increasing the age of retirement for

clergy from 67 years to 70 years.

12. Being aggrieved by the resolution passed at the special

session of the Synod on 07.03.2022, third suit C.S. No.

274/2022 came to be filed on 20.12.2022 by a former CSI Synod

Member, D. Lawrence wherein the plaintiff assailed the

resolution and seeks appointment of a former Judge of the High

Court along with other following prayers:

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 10 of 62

a. Declaring the resolution dated 7.3.2022 of 1

st

defendant declared as having passed in the special

Synod council meeting held in Tiruchirappalli

including the amendment seeking to amend Chapter

V clause 12(a) of the Constitution of South India

and enhancing the retirement age of the Bishop as

70 years, as manipulated, illegal, void and non-est

in law.

b. Appointing a former judge/s of this Hon'ble

Court as administrator(s) for administration and

managing the affairs of the 1

st

defendant and for

enquiring, correcting the manipulations and

illegalities and streamlining the electoral college

including nomination to its Synod Council, of the

1st defendant and conducting the forthcoming CSI

election for the term 2023-2026 in a free and fair

manner, strictly as per the constitution of CSI.

c. Permanent injunction restraining the

defendants 2 to 8 from conducting any diocesan

council meeting, either by zoom mode or any other

mode, CSI Synod council, executive committee or

working committee of CSI Synod for approval or

implementation of the impugned resolution dated

7.3.2022 circulated by the defendants 2 to 5 and

passing any resolution approving the disputed

resolution dated 7.3.2022.

d. Permanent injunction restraining the

defendants 2 to 5 from conducting any election

process for the forthcoming CIS Synod council

election for the term 2023-2026 prior to

streamlining the electoral college by an

administrator(s) to be appointed by this Hon’ble

Court or altering the electoral college by any

means.

e. To pay the cost of the suit

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 11 of 62

f. To pass such further or other orders as this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

13. Along with the said suit (C.S. No. 274/2022), three

applications were filed by the plaintiff seeking following reliefs:

a. O.A. No. 818/2022 - …..To grant an order of

interim injunction restraining the

respondents/defendants 2 to 9 from conducting any

diocesan council meeting, either by zoom mode or

any other mode, CSI Synod council, executive

committee or working committee of CSI Synod for

approval or implementation of the impugned

resolution dated 7.3.2022 circulated by the

respondents/defendants 2 to 5 and passing any

resolution approving the disputed resolution dated

7.3.2022, pending disposal of the suit.

b. O.A. No. 819/2022 - …..To grant an order of

interim injunction restraining the

respondents/defendants 2 to 5 from conducting any

election process for the forthcoming CSI Synod

council election for the term 2023-2026 prior to

streamlining the electoral college by an

administrator(s) to be appointed by this Court, or

altering the electoral college by any means, pending

disposal of the above suit.

c. A. No. 5961/2022 - …..To appoint a former

judge/s of this Court as interim administrator(s) for

administration and managing the affairs of the 1st

respondent/defendant and for enquiring, correcting

the manipulating and illegalities and streamlining

the electoral college including nomination to its

Synod Council, of the 1st respondent/defendant and

conducting the forthcoming CSI election for the

term 2023-2026 in a free and fair manner, strictly

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 12 of 62

as per the constitution of the CSI pending, pending

disposal of the above suit.

14. In the chain of events, a notification was issued on

27.12.2022 by the General Secretary CSI to all the Bishops

/Moderators CSI informing that the amendments to the

Constitution have been ratified as per the Constitution of the CSI

and shall come into force from the date of this communication.

The operative part of the letter is read as under:

“It is therefore resolved that the ratification of the

amendments to the Constitution of the Church of

South India by 15 Diocesan Councils constituting

two-thirds of the said Councils as contemplated

under Chapter XIII, Rule 2 (c) at page 116 of the

CS/ Constitution is in order and to authorize the

General Secretary to declare that the amendments

shall come into force from the date of such

communication.”

15. In consequence thereof, a fourth suit C.S. No. 7 of 2023

came to be filed on 02.01.2023 by two Synod members, D.

Sunildas and S. Jayaraj challenging the notification issued by the

Working Committee of the Synod on 27.12.2022 along with

other following reliefs:

a. Declaring the notification dated 27.12.2022

issued by the 1

st

defendant through the 4

th

defendant

and all connected and consequential actions

seeking to carry out or implement the amendments

including the amendment seeking to enhance the

retirement age of the Bishops and Presbyters as 70

years, allegedly passed by the Special Synod

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 13 of 62

Council meeting held on 7.3.2022 at

Tiruchirappalli, as illegal void and non-est in law.

b. Permanent injunction restraining the

defendants 2 to 5 and their men and agents from

proceeding with any meeting of Church of South

India Synod council or any other meeting for the

election of Church of South India Synod Council

and office bearers, for the forthcoming triennium

2023-2025 on the basis of the impugned notification

dated 27.12.2022.

c. Permanent injunction restraining the

defendants and their men and agents from in any

manner amending the Constitution/ Byelaws of the

1

st

defendants or implementing any amendments as

per the Special Synod council meeting resolution

dated 7.3.2022 held in Tiruchirappalli or the

impugned notification dated 27.12.2022.

d. Appointing a former judge/s of this Hon'ble

Court as administrator(s) for framing guidelines

and for good administration and managing the

affairs of the 1

st

defendant and for enquiring into all

pending disputes affecting or relating to the

electoral college of Church of South India and the

constituent dioceses of the 1

st

defendant and to

streamline the electoral college and thereafter

conduct the election for the CSI Synod council for

the triennium 2023-2025 strictly in accordance with

the Constitution of the 1

st

defendant.

e. To pay the cost of the suit.

f. To pass such further or other orders as this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 14 of 62

16. Subsequent to filing the aforementioned suit C.S. No.

7/2023, the plaintiffs further filed three applications in this suit

seeking interim reliefs with the following prayers:

a. O.A. No. 21/2023 - ….. To grant an order of

interim injunction restraining the respondents/

defendants 2 to 5 and their men and agents from

proceeding with any meeting of Church of South

India Synod council or any other meeting for the

election of Church of South India Synod Council

and office bearers, for the forthcoming triennium

2023-2025 on the basis of the impugned notification

dated 27.12.2022 or otherwise, pending disposal of

the above suit.

b. O.A. No. 22/2023 - ….. To grant an order of

interim injunction restraining the respondents/

defendants and their men and agents from in any

manner amending the Constitution/ Byelaws of the

1

st

respondent/ defendant or implementing any

amendments claimed to have been passed in the

Special Synod council meeting dated 07.03.2022 in

Tiruchirappalli or the impugned notification dated

27.12.2022, pending disposal of the above suit.

c. O.A. No. 190/2023 - ….. To appoint a former

judge/s of this Hon'ble Court as interim

administrator(s) for framing guidelines and for

good administration and managing the affairs of the

1

st

respondent/ defendant and for enquiring into all

pending disputes affecting or relating to the

electoral college of Church of South India Synod

and the constituent dioceses of the 1

st

respondent/defendant and to streamline the

electoral college and thereafter conduct the election

for the CSI Synod council for the triennium 2023-

2025 strictly in accordance with the constitution of

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 15 of 62

the 1

st

respondent/defendant, pending disposal of

the above suit.

17. Before proceeding to the parties’ respective arguments,

this Court shall now undertake an examination of the orders

rendered upon the applications filed in the aforementioned civil

suits.

Observations Made in the Applications Filed in the First Suit

C.S. No. 86/2022

18. Adverting to the applications (A. Nos. 54-27 of 2023 and A.

No. 2584 of 2023) filed in the first suit C.S. No. 86/2022, the

Learned Single Judge disposed of the applications vide a

common interim order dated 05.09.2023.

19. The Learned Single Judge, in its consideration of the matter,

confined the scope of its intervention to a determination of

whether prescribed procedures were followed while making the

amendments. Subsequently, the learned Single Judge concluded

the following:

(i) After reviewing both the video of the meeting and the

minutes of the meeting, it can be concluded that the

Special Meeting of the Synod held on 07.03.2022 was duly

convened.

(ii) Amendments to the CSI Constitution were not validly

ratified by 2/3

rd

of the Diocesan Councils as CSI allegedly

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 16 of 62

relied upon 15 Councils from total of 22 Diocesan

Councils, out of which ratifications by the Coimbatore

Diocese and the Medak Diocese were prima facie invalid

due to non-adherence with prescribed procedures of the

CSI Constitution;

(iii) The election of the incumbent Moderator is prima

facie invalid as the constitutional amendments, which

could have impacted the eligibility to contest the election,

were not validly ratified;

(iv) The elections of the other office bearers (Deputy

Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer) can be

declared, subject to the outcome of pending civil suits

because the increase in Synod member nominations from

10 to 15 had a minor impact on the 2023 election results

and considering the wide victory margins and potential

hardship to the 4.5 million CSI members, the court

concluded that interfering with the election would cause

greater harm;

(v) The Court declined to appoint an interim administrator

for the CSI as none of the cases against the Moderator have

resulted in their conviction;

(vi) There is a need to appoint an independent Election

Officer (a retired High Court Judge) to conduct a fresh

election for the position of Moderator as it is observed that

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 17 of 62

Synod’s hasty electoral amendments, seemingly aimed at

influencing the 2023-2026 elections.

20. The relevant portion of the learned Single Judge’s order

dated 05.09.2023 is reproduced hereunder:

“42. Thus, the aforementioned Chapter XIII Rule 2

read with the above bye-law prescribes the

following requirements for amendments to the

Constitution to come into force:

1) A proposal for amendment by way of a

resolution of one or more diocesan councils

or by the Executive Committee of the Synod.

2) The resolution for amendment being

passed by not less than a 2/3rd majority of the

Synod, including by following the special

procedure prescribed by rules 22 to 24 in

chapter IX, wherever applicable.

3) The ratification of the resolutions passed

by the Synod by not less than 2/3rd of the

diocesan councils.

4) Upon receipt of requisite ratifications,

authorization by the Synod Executive

Committee/Working Committee to the

General Secretary of the CSI to declare that

the amendments have come into force.

5) The issuance of such declaration by the

General Secretary

43. ….. The minutes disclose that the Executive

Committee of the Synod resolved to forward the

proposed constitutional amendments and

amendments to the bye-laws for the consideration

and approval of the Synod at the special session…

Prima facie, the first requirement for amendment to

the CSI Constitution and the bye-laws appears to

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 18 of 62

have been satisfied. As stated earlier, the second

requirement is for the Synod to approve the

amendments by not less than a 2/3

rd

majority.

Whether the special session of the Synod was duly

convened and held is considered next.

45. The video recording provided by the CSI was

viewed in Court at the hearing on 15.06.2023…..

The video recording does not capture the audience

and, therefore, it is not possible to conclude on the

basis of the video whether the amendments were

carried by the requisite 2/3rd majority. The video

recording, however, captures the statement by the

General Secretary that the amendments to the age

of retirement of bishops and presbyters were

carried…..

48. As discussed above, in view of the 25-day notice

and the absence of provisions in the CSI

Constitution with regard to the manner of convening

meetings of the Synod, it is concluded prima facie

that the meeting of 07.03.2022 was duly convened.

As regards the outcome of the meeting, the video

recording indicates prima facie that a section of

members objected to the amendments pertaining to

the age of retirement of bishops and presbyters and

requested for a secret ballot. While there was

commotion when these items of business were

transacted, the commotion appeared to have died

down while the remaining business was transacted.

When the video recording and the minutes of the

special session meeting are looked at cumulatively,

for interlocutory purposes, I conclude that the

meeting was duly convened and that the minutes of

meeting cannot be disregarded.

49. The third stage is the ratification of the

amendments by the requisite majority of diocesan

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 19 of 62

councils. The CSI relied upon alleged ratifications

by…..15 Diocesan Councils…..

50. The list of 15 includes the Karnataka Central

Diocese. The order dated 21.04.2023 of the

Karnataka High Court, with regard to the meeting

of the Karnataka Central Diocese, is self-evident.

The operative portion of the order is set out below:

“(iii) Defendant No.3 is restrained

temporarily from taking any decision to ratify

the resolution passed by Synod and to accept

the proposed amendment, till disposal of the

suit. If any decision is already taken in the

meeting that was held on 21.12.2022 by

defendant No.3, the same will not have any

effect and the same is to be ignored.”

….In this factual context, as regards the conclusions

drawn in the said order with regard to the meeting

of the Karnataka Central Diocese, for interlocutory

purposes, I see no reason to deviate from the

conclusion of the Karnataka High Court.

Effectively, even assuming without admitting that

the other 14 Diocesan Councils duly ratified the

amendments, the requisite 2/3

rd

majority is not

satisfied.

52. …..Considering the non-adherence to the notice

period; the large membership of about 387

members; the significance of the agenda (to

consider amendments to the charter document); the

failure to produce the minutes of meeting; and the

purported conduct of the meeting on the Zoom

platform, I reach the prima facie conclusion that the

meeting of the CSI Coimbatore Diocese to ratify the

amendments was not in accordance with the

Constitution and that this ratification was prima

facie invalid.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 20 of 62

53. …..By taking into account the non-adherence to

the notice period especially in the context of the

large membership of about 534 members; the

significance of the agenda (to consider amendments

to the charter document); the failure to produce the

minutes of meeting; and the purported conduct of

the meeting on the Zoom platform, I reach the prima

facie conclusion that the meeting of the CSI Medak

Diocese to ratify the amendments was not in

accordance with the Constitution and that this

ratification was prima facie invalid.

54. Thus, apart from the Karnataka Central

Diocese, the ratifications by the CSI Coimbatore

Diocese and the CSI Medak Diocese are prima facie

invalid. In effect, the ratifications of two thirds of

the diocesan councils are prima facie not available

and the conclusion that follows is that the

amendments to the Constitution were not ratified in

accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 2

of chapter XIII of the Constitution. Consequently,

the amendments cannot be given effect to. Although

rival contentions were advanced as regards the

meetings of various other diocesan council

meetings, in view of the above conclusion, it is

unnecessary to examine the same at this juncture.

55. The amendments to the bye-laws fall into a

different category….. Rule 3 deals with the power of

the Executive Committee of the Synod to frame

rules, regulations and bye-laws for the operation of

the provisions of the Constitution. Since the power

to frame bye-laws is conferred on the Executive

Committee of the Synod, in my view, the power to

amend bye-laws is implied therein. Rule 3 applies

subject to the rider “unless otherwise provided” …..

Whether the bye-laws were duly amended remains

to be seen.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 21 of 62

56. ….. As discussed earlier, the video recording of

the special session indicates that the amendments to

the qualifications of the general secretary and

treasurer (item nos. 3, 5, 6) were taken up along

with the amendment to item 7 of the amendments to

the Constitution and it is not possible to draw clear

conclusions there from about the passing of these

amendments as these amendments were not read out

or discussed separately. Therefore, the video

recording should be considered conjointly with the

minutes of the special session. The minutes indicate

that the amendments were passed unanimously. In

the absence of any material indicating otherwise, I

tentatively conclude that the amendments were

carried at the special session.

57. The impact and implications of the above prima

facie conclusions on the elections conducted on

13.01.2023 warrant careful consideration…..

59. ….. Prima facie, the election of the incumbent

Moderator is invalid in view of the earlier

conclusion that the amendments were not duly

ratified.

60. The next aspect to be considered is whether the

amendments to the Constitution impacted the

composition of the electoral college and,

consequently, the election of other office bearers…..

By taking into account the amendments and the

composition of the Synod, I find that four

amendments could have impacted the composition

of the electoral college. The first of these being the

increase in the age of retirement of bishops from 67

to 70 years….. This amendment potentially impacts

the electoral college because all bishops are ex-

officio members of the Synod and, consequently,

entitled to participate in the election of office

bearers of the Synod, including as members of the

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 22 of 62

Bishops' Council. The consequence of increase in

the age of retirement of bishops from 67 to 70 years

is that even bishops who completed the age of 67, as

on the date of election, would be entitled to continue

as bishops and, therefore, ex officio, as members of

the Synod.

61. The second amendment with potential impact on

the electoral college is the amendment to the age of

retirement of presbyters from 67 to 70 years….. As

a result of the increase in the retirement age of

presbyters, persons who were previously ineligible

would become eligible for being elected as

representatives of the respective diocesan councils

to the Synod.

67. In order to examine whether the amendments to

the age of retirement of bishops and presbyters

actually impacted the composition of the

Synod/electoral college to elect the office bearers of

the Synod, it is necessary to check the ages of

bishops and presbyters who participated in the

election of office bearers of the Synod on

13.01.2023… By verifying the age of participating

bishops and presbyters from these documents, I find

prima facie that none of the bishops and presbyters

from the above mentioned 20 Dioceses had

completed the age of 67 as on 13.01.2023 because

all the participants were born after 13.01.1956.

69. Apart from the two amendments discussed

earlier, the third amendment….. This amendment

enabled the four office bearers of the Synod to

nominate 15 persons as additional members of the

Synod. Prior to the amendment, the Moderator

could nominate 10 additional members. As is

evident from the list of participating persons at the

ordinary meeting of the Synod, this amendment was

implemented by nominating 15 members. Thus, as

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 23 of 62

regards this amendment, there was an actual, albeit

limited, impact.

70. By an amendment to Rule 2(d) of Chapter XI,

the CSI Congregations in the North American

Council and in Gulf countries were permitted to

elect four members each to the Synod. If such

election was done and if such elected members

participated in the elections, it could have altered

the electoral college to that extent. On examining

the list of participants at the Synod election and the

attendance registers, I conclude that the CSI

Congregations in the North American Council and

in the Gulf countries did not send representatives

pursuant to the amendments.

71. Hence, on an analysis of the four amendments

discussed above, I conclude prima facie that the

composition of the electorate was actually impacted

to a very limited extent by the nomination of 15,

instead of 10, members to the Synod by the

incumbent officers of the Synod, and that the other

three amendments did not have an impact.

Therefore, the follow-on question is whether the

election of the Deputy Moderator, General

Secretary and Treasurer should be interfered with

because five additional members were nominated

by the Moderator and other officers of the Synod.

The report of the election officer for the ordinary

meeting of the Synod discloses that 345 delegates

participated in the meeting and that 343

participated in the voting. The video recording of

the election and the report are in conformity…..

72. From the above, it appears that the margin of

victory of each of the three office bearers is

significant and that the votes of the five additional

members, who were nominated by the Moderator

and the other officers of the Synod, did not impact

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 24 of 62

the result… Therefore, I am of the view that

interference with the election of the Deputy

Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer at the

instance of the plaintiffs would cause far greater

hardship to the 4.5 million members of the CSI and,

consequently, to the institution than non-

interference.

73. By earlier order dated 12.01.2023, I held that

the elections may take place but that the results

should not be declared until further orders. I also

held that no equities may be claimed by persons

who would have been ineligible to contest but for

the amendments, and this condition applies as

regards the election of the Moderator. For reasons

set out earlier, I conclude that the election of the

Moderator was not valid but that the election of the

other office bearers may be declared but would be

subject to the outcome of the suits.

74. …..The respective plaintiffs prayed for the

appointment of an interim administrator to take

charge of the affairs of CSI, including to conduct the

election… As on date, none of the cases have

resulted in the conviction of the Moderator. The

governance of the CSI is regulated by an elaborate

written Constitution… In these facts and

circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the

request for the appointment of an interim

administrator. Whether an election officer or

commissioner should be appointed is a distinct

matter which falls for consideration next.

75. The incumbent Moderator was permitted to

continue by order dated 12.01.2023 until further

orders. The Moderator is elected for a three year

term and is the head of the CSI. Therefore, it is not

in the interest of the 4.5 million members of the CSI

that the institution functions without a Moderator

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 25 of 62

until final disposal. Therefore, I am of the view that

the balance of convenience is in favour of directing

re-election and that irreparable hardship would be

caused to the plaintiffs and all the members of the

CSI unless the Moderator is elected afresh. The

documents on record indicate prima facie that the

office bearers endeavoured to push through the

amendments in great haste. Although the bye-law

relating to the entry into force of amendments

provides for a two year period within which the

amendments must be ratified by the respective

diocesan councils, the office bearers of the Synod

proceeded with undue haste. From the above, a

tentative conclusion may be drawn that the office

bearers intended to ensure the passage of the

amendments before the elections for the 2023-2026

triennium were held. These facts justify the

appointment of an election officer to conduct the

election of the Moderator of the Synod for the

triennium 2023-2026….”

21. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common interim

order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge,

following appeals were filed challenging the aforesaid order:

a) Ex-Bishop of Madras Diocese filed O.S.A. No.

189/2023 in A. No. 54/2023 and O.S.A. No. 191/2023 in

A. No. 55/2023 and Ex-Moderator filed OSA No. 204-

5/2023 in A. No. 54/2023, all the appeals challenging the

finding that amendments were not ratified by 2/3rd of the

Diocesan Councils.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 26 of 62

b) Ex-General Secretary filed OSA No. 32/2024 in A.

No. 54/2023 and CSI, Ex-General Secretary and Ex-

Deputy Moderator filed OSA No. 31/2024 in A. No.

55/2023, both the appeals challenging particularly the

order concluding that the amendments were not carried out

in accordance with the Constitution of Church of South

India and the requirements for carrying out valid

amendments were not adhered to.

c) Plaintiffs filed OSA No. 198/2023 in A. No.

57/2023 challenging to the extent that the learned Single

Judge has not appointed an Interim Administrator and has

not validated the elections of the Deputy Moderator,

General Secretary and Treasurer and directed fresh

elections to these three posts be conducted.

22. The Learned Division Bench vide Impugned Order

dated 27.02.2024, disposed of O.S.A. No. 189/2023 in A. No.

54/2023 and O.S.A. No. 191/2023 in A. No. 55/2023 as having

become ineffective. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:

“2. While disposing of another appeal in

OSA.No.69 of 2022 today, we have affirmed the

injunction granted by the learned single Judge of

this Court restraining the CSI from implementing

the resolutions relating to the enhancement of age

of retirement of the Bishops and the terms of the

Office of the elected Office Bearers and on the

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 27 of 62

finding that the meeting of the synod dated

07.03.2022 was not properly convened.

2. In view of the said order that has been passed by us

today, the position of the appellant as a retired

Bishop becomes undisputable. Therefore, these

appeals challenging only to the portion of the order

relating to the enhancement of age do not survive.

Therefore, these appeals are disposed of as having

become ineffective as any orders passed in these

appeals cannot be implemented in view of our order

passed in O.S.A.No.69 of 2022.…..”

23. Subsequently, vide Impugned Order dated 27.02.2024

passed in OSA No. 204-05/2023 in A. No. 54/2023, the Learned

Division Bench again disposed of the appeals as having become

ineffective. The Division Bench concluded that by the order

passed in O.S.A. No. 69/2022, the Division Bench has upheld

the injunction granted by the Learned Single judge in another suit

on the ground that the meeting dated 07.03.2022 was not

convened properly. The injunction granted specifically

prohibited the CSI from implementing the resolutions regarding

the increase in age of the bishops and terms of the Office of the

Elected Bearers, which includes the Moderator who is the

appellant in these two appeals. Therefore, the appeals also

become ineffective, since any order passed in these appeals

cannot be implemented in view of the prohibitory injunction that

has been granted in C.S. No. 45/2022.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 28 of 62

24. Further, vide Common Impugned Order dated

12.04.2024 passed in O.S.A. No. 198 of 2023 in A. No. 57/2023

and O.S.A Nos. 31-32/2024 in A. No. 54/2023, the Division

Bench of the High Court made the following observations:

(i) O.S.A. No. 198 of 2023 – Firstly, it has been

observed that from the list of representatives who had

participate in the ordinary meeting of the Synod held on

13

th

and 15

th

January 2023, it is found that out of 19

Diocesan Councils, at least 11 of them do not comply with

the requirements of the Constitution regarding nominated

members i.e. bye-laws states number of members who

should be below the age of 35 years and the number of

women members. Therefore, the structure of the Electoral

College itself is fundamentally defective. The relevant

portion is reproduced hereunder:

“59. The above provision would lays down

the composition of representatives nominated

or elected by each Diocesan Council to

represent them in the meetings of the Synod.

If we are to test as to whether the list that has

been furnished by the Church of South India

disclosing the number of representatives who

had participated in the election meeting of

the Synod held on 13

th

and 15

th

of January

2023 satisfy the requirements above, we find

that at least insofar as the 11 Diocese are

concerned, the bye-laws relating to the

number of members who should be below the

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 29 of 62

age of 35 years and the number of women

members has not been complied with.

Therefore, it is clear that the Electoral

College itself is flawed.”

Secondly, the learned Division Bench did not agree with

the findings of the learned Single Bench that the elections

of the other office bearers cannot be said to be vitiated on

the basis of the results, because once it is found that the

constitution of the Electoral College was defective and the

process of amendment of the bye-laws has not been carried

out in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the

Constitution of the CSI the sequitur should be that the

whole of the elections will stand vitiated. Therefore, the

other officer bearers who are elected in such a vitiated

election cannot be allowed to continue in office. Thus, the

Court is satisfied that Administrators should be appointed

to conduct the elections of the Church of South India

Synod. Learned Division Bench further observed that

learned Single Bench had already appointed Hon'ble Mr.

Justice V. Bharathidasan to conduct the elections for the

post of Moderator alone, however learned Division Bench

while considering the nature of work and the time to be

spent, the Bench concluded that it would be better to form

a Committee of Administrators rather than an individual,

hence Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Balasubramanian and

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 30 of 62

Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Bharathidasan, retired Judges of

the HC were appointed as the member of the said

committee.

(ii) O.S.A Nos. 31 and 32 of 2024 – In O.S.A. No. 69

of 2022, the learned Division Bench held that the very

special meeting of the Church of South India Synod held

on 07.03.2022 was not properly convened because there

was no resolution of the Executive Committee authorising

a special meeting of the Synod passed on 12.01.2022.

Therefore, it was concluded that these appeals challenging

the observations of the learned Single Judge to the effect

that the amendments to the Constitution were not passed

after following the procedure prescribed in the

Constitution of the CSI have become ineffective, in view

of the findings recorded by us in O.S.A. No. 69 of 2022.

Hence, these appeals by the Church of South India were

dismissed as having become ineffective by the learned

Division Bench.

Observations Made in the Applications Filed in the Second Suit

C.S. No. 45/2022

25. Regarding the applications (O.A. Nos. 114-115 of 2022)

filed in the second suit C.S. No. 45/2022, the Learned Single

Judge disposed of the applications vide an interim order dated

10.03.2022. The learned Single Judge granted interim

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 31 of 62

injunction, restraining the defendants from giving effect to the

resolutions passed in the meeting convened by the 1

st

Respondent/D. Lawrence on 7

th

and 8

th

March 2022 with regard

to the fixation of upper age for the Bishops and Terms of elected

members till the disposal of the above suit.

26. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, CSI and office bearers

filed O.S.A. No. 69/2022 assailing the interim order dated

10.03.2022 praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated

10.03.2022 in O.A. No. 115 of 2022 in C.S. No. 45/2022, and

thereby allow this appeal with costs and render justice.

27. The Learned Division Bench vide Impugned Order

dated 27.02.2024 dismissed O.S.A. No. 69/2022. The Court

observed that Rule 20 of Chapter IX of the CSI Constitution

deals with the convening of the Special Meeting of the Synod

which makes it very clear that the Special Meeting of the Synod

shall be summoned by the Executive Committee. The Court

noted that the Defendants failed to provide any official resolution

or evidence proving that any decision of setting a Synod Meeting

on 7

th

and 8

th

March 2022 was taken by the Executive Committee

meeting held on 12.01.2022. The Court was of the opinion that

the very convening of the Special Meeting of the Synod on 7

th

and 8

th

March 2022 is vitiated. The relevant extract is reproduced

is as under:

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 32 of 62

“13. In the light of the above facts, we are of the

considered opinion that the very convening of the

Special Meeting of the Synod on 7

th

and of March

2022 is vitiated. This opinion of us is only prima

facie since we are only dealing with the appeal

against the order of the temporary injunction that

has been granted in the suit. Though the learned

Single Judge had not elaborately discussed these

issues, being an order of temporary injunction, we

do not propose to send the matter back to the

learned Single Judge for a decision on these issues

since we find from the records that there has been

prima facie violation of Rule 20 and therefore, the

order of interim injunction have to be sustained.”

Observations Made in the Applications Filed in the Third Suit

C.S. No. 274/2022

28. Adverting to the applications (O.A. Nos. 818-819/2022 and

A. No. 5961 of 2022) filed in the third suit C.S. No. 274/2022,

the learned Single Judge closed the applications vide common

order dated 05.09.2023. The learned Single Judge closed the

applications in this suit by granting leave to apply for interim

relief, if required, after obtaining leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

29. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order,

O.S.A. Nos. 236-238/2023 was preferred by the plaintiffs

praying to set aside the order dated 05.09.2023 in so far as the

closing of O.A. No. 818/2022 in C.S. No. 274/2022 and in so far

as allowing the defendants 3 to 5 to get themselves declared as

elected as Dy. Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 33 of 62

respectively are concerned and allow O.A. No. 818/2022 as

prayed for and thus render justice.

30. The learned Division Bench vide Impugned Order dated

12.04.2024, dismissed the O.S.A. Nos. 236-238/2023, and

concluded that the plaintiffs had not obtained leave under Order

1 Rule 8 of the CPC to file the suit in a representative capacity.

The relevant extract is reproduced as under:

“37. We should not be taken to have approved the

orders of the learned Single Judge closing the

applications on the ground permission under Order

I Rule 8 has not been obtained. However, since no

application under Order I Rule 8 was filed before

the trial Court and whatever application that was

filed was withdrawn we do not think we could

entertain these appeals against the orders closing

the applications in C.S.No.274 of 2022 and we leave

it open to the plaintiff to file a fresh application in

the said suit under Order I Rule 8 and thereafter

seek interlocutory orders in the said suit. Original

Side Appeals filed by the plaintiff in C.S.No.274 of

2022 viz., O.S.A.Nos.236, 237 and 238 of 2023 are

therefore dismissed without costs.”

Observations Made in the Applications Filed in the Fourth Suit

C.S. No. 7/2023

31. Regarding the applications (O.A. Nos. 21-22 of 2023 and

O.A No. 190/2023) filed in the fourth suit C.S. No. 7/2023, the

Learned Single Judge vide common order dated 05.09.2023,

closed the applications in this suit by granting leave to apply for

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 34 of 62

interim relief, if required, after obtaining leave under Order 1

Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

32. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order,

plaintiffs preferred O.S.A. No. 188, 190, 192/2023 praying to set

aside the order dated 05.09.2023 in so far as the closing of O.A.

No. 21/2023 in C.S. No. 7/2023 and in so far as allowing the

defendants 3 to 5 to get themselves declared as elected as Dy.

Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer respectively are

concerned and allow O.A. No. 21/2023 as prayed for and thus

render justice.

33. The learned Division Bench vide Common Impugned

Order dated 12.04.2024 allowed O.S.A. No. 188, 190,

192/2023. The Court observed that once it is held that permission

under Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be

obtained at any stage of the proceedings, the non-grant of

permission being a curable defect cannot be construed as a

stumbling block to grant the reliefs if circumstances justify. The

relevant portion is reproduced as under:

“85. 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…..

86. Even otherwise, in the case on hand, the

application for leave was pending on the date when

the learned Single Judge refused relief to the

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 35 of 62

plaintiffs in C.S.No.7 of 2023 on the ground that the

application has not been ordered…..

91. ….. We therefore do not think that the learned

Single Judge was right in not passing any orders in

the applications filed in C.S.No.7 of 2022 and

closing the applications with liberty to the plaintiffs

to seek the reliefs after obtaining leave.

92. We would therefore allow these appeals only to

the limited extent that these applications will also

stand disposed of in terms of the orders passed by

us in O.S.A. No. l98 of 2023. In view of the fact that

we have appointed Administering Committee, the

applications seeking interim injunctions do not

survive, they are therefore closed.”

34. The present appeals are hereby arising out of these

aforesaid impugned orders dated 27.02.2024 and 12.04.2024

passed by the learned Division Bench.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE

APPELLANTS

Challenge to the order dated 27.02.2024 in O.S.A. No. 69/2022:

35. The learned counsel for the appellants advanced detailed

and comprehensive submissions, addressing the matter at

considerable length. In the course of their arguments, they raised

several pivotal issues that go to the root of the dispute. These

submissions encompassed both factual and legal dimensions of

the case and sought to challenge the validity of the impugned

orders dated 27.02.2024 and 12.04.2024.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 36 of 62

36. In considering the arguments advanced by the appellants,

it is now pertinent to undertake a seriatim examination of the

submissions presented before this Court:

Validity of the Synod Meeting Dated 07.03.2022:

37. The learned counsel for the appellant denied the averments

made in the plaint that no date and venue for the Special Meeting

of Synod held on 07.03.2022 was fixed on 12.01.2022 in a

Special Executive Committee meeting and that no agenda was

circulated with the notice for the meeting. It has been vehemently

argued that in the minutes of the meeting filed, it can be

concluded that the special executive committee decided to

convene the special synod meeting and authorised the moderator

and other moderators to fix the date and venue of the meeting in

consultation with the bishops and further directed the general

secretary to prepare and circulate the proposed amendments to

all the bishops for forwarding the same to each and every

member of the synod in their respective diocese.

37.1 The learned counsel further contended that the learned

Single Judge had the benefit of viewing the video in this case and

there was not a whisper from anybody that there was no

resolution convening the meeting and in fact the plaintiff in C.S.

No. 45 of 2022 also did not raise any objection as seen in the

videography and on the basis of the material evidence, the

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 37 of 62

learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the meeting

was duly convened which finding not being perverse does not

merit any interference. Reliance is placed regarding this on

Shyam Sel & Power Ltd and Anr. v. Shyam Steel Industries

Limited.

1

37.2 Moreover, it was submitted that the respondent’s email

dated 10.02.2022 which is a reply to the General Secretary’s

email notice based on the resolution of the special executive

committee of 12.01.2022, where the complaint is 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.

Evidence Consideration:

38. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned

Division Bench ignored the fact that 326/359 members attended

the meeting on 07.03.2022. This included the members – Ms.

Benita Babu, Ms. Sheeba Tharakarn, Mr. Franklyn James and

Ms. Booshanam Thabithal who complained about a lack of

proper notice. This can prima facie prove the adequacy of the

notice.

1

(2023) 1 SCC 634 at Para 37.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 38 of 62

38.1 Moreover, the learned counsel for appellant also claimed

that the court refused to consider the resolution of the Special

Executive Committee held on 12.01.2022, which was present in

connected appeals. From the said Special Executive Committee

Meeting, it could be recorded from the minutes of the meeting

that a decision was taken to summon a Special Synod Meeting

for the approval of the proposed amendments.

Validity of the Proposed Amendments to the Constitution

and Bye-Laws of the CSI:

39. The counsel for the appellant contended that the learned

Single Judge, in his judgment dated 05.09.2023 has held that the

first two steps for the amendment of the Constitution i.e.

meetings dated 12.01.2022 and 07.03.2022, were valid.

However, learned Division Bench while passing the judgment

dated 27.02.2024 in O.S.A. No. 69/2022 whereby the meeting

held on 07.03.2022 was declared as vitiated, however, the

learned Division Bench did not consider the fact that there was

already a judicial order dated 05.09.2023 confirming the validity

of the two meetings.

39.1 Further, it was submitted that out of 359 members, 326

members were present at the Special Synod Meeting held on

07.03.2022. With regards to the amendment proposing the

increase of clergy retirement age from 67 to 70 is concerned, 289

members voted for the proposal for an increase in the retirement

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 39 of 62

age and 37 voted against it. Therefore, it was submitted that the

requirement of passing of resolution by 2/3

rd

majority of the

Synod was fulfilled.

39.2 Further, the learned counsels for the appellants

vehemently argued that the proposal for amendment was sent to

the 22 dioceses however, there is a judicial restraint against

Karnataka Central Diocese from ratifying amendments. Thus, it

should be excluded from the total number of dioceses who were

eligible to vote. Thus, the total number of dioceses should be

taken as 21 and not 22. Consequently, 2/3

rd

majority would thus

be 14. It is further submitted that there is no dispute regarding

the ratification by the following: (i) Dornakal (ii) Jaffna (iii)

Karnataka North (iv) Karnataka South (v) Karimnagar (vi)

Krishna-Godavari (vii) Kollam-Kottarkara (viii) Madras (ix)

Madurai-Ramnad (x) Rayalseema (xi) Thoothukudi-Nazareth

(xii) Trichy-Tanjore. Therefore, if it is shown that two more

dioceses have voted in favour of the ratification, the 2/3

rd

majority would be crossed.

39.3 The learned counsel further submitted that with regard to

Coimbatore Diocese, the learned Single Judge has found that the

notice period of 3 months was not followed thus, the ratification

was prima facie not proper. However, three notices were issued

for the meeting: 18.11.2022, 1.12.2022 and 9.12.2022 and the

meeting was then held on 10.12.2022. Further, the total number

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 40 of 62

of members of the Diocese is 387 out of which 236 members

attended and voted. Further, 221 members voted in favour of the

proposal and 15 voted against. Therefore, 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.

39.4 The learned counsel further submitted that if they adopt

the same line of reasoning with Medak Diocese (534 members

out of which 378 attended and 260 voted in favour of the

amendments, 15 voted against and remaining abstained) as they

did with Coimbatore Diocese, the ratio would be 260:171.

Besides, no absentee member of the Coimbatore diocese has

challenged the meeting procedure.

39.5 Further it was submitted that with regards to Nandyal

Diocese, the CSI, in its written statement before the High Court,

had relied on full ratifications by 15 dioceses. It had also relied

on a partial ratification by the Nandyal diocese. This Diocese had

approved the proposed amendment for enhancement of

retirement age from 67 to 70 years by a majority of 241-6. The

amendment on the issue of retirement age stood fully ratified.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 41 of 62

39.6 Therefore, it was further submitted that if the votes of the

Coimbatore, Nandyal and Medak are counted as ratifications and

the vote of Karnatak Central diocese removed from consideration

all together, it is seen that 15/21 diocese ratified the amendment

and this comfortably crosses the 2/3

rd

majority and even if the

vote of Karnataka Central is taken into consideration and counted

against the amendments, it can be seen that 15/22 ratified the

amendments, which is more than a 2/3

rd

majority.

40. Further, it was contended that while considering the

validity of the amendments to the bye-laws, the learned Single

Judge has correctly acknowledged the minutes of the meeting of

the Special Executive Committee of the Synod, which was held

on 12.01.2022, which indicates that the Executive Committee of

the Synod framed amendments to the bye-laws and resolved to

place the same before the Synod which later held on 07.03.2022.

It was further submitted that the video recording of the special

session indicated that the amendments to the qualifications of the

general secretary and treasurer were taken up along with the

amendment to the Constitution. The appellant further argued that

while the learned Single Judge noted the difficulty in drawing

clear conclusions about the passing of these amendments from

the video recording of the 07.03.2022 session, the court also

observed that the minutes of the special session indicated that the

amendments to the bye-laws were passed unanimously.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 42 of 62

40.1 Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant argued

that the learned Single Judge’s conclusion that the amendments

to the bye-laws were carried at the special session is correct,

given the absence of any material indicating otherwise.

40.2 Further, the learned counsel for appellant stated that for

the submission that the said minutes of the special synod meeting

was not signed, the counsel submitted that the original signed

minutes are in the office of the synod and what was submitted on

record was the print out.

41. Moreover, it was submitted that no prejudice from the

amendments could have been caused as the amendments only

increased the pool of people eligible to hold various offices. It is

also important to note that none of the unsuccessful candidate in

the election has challenged either the amendments or the election

process.

Interim Relief:

42. It was further submitted that the learned Division Bench

stayed the resolution, impermissibly moulding the relief at the

interim stage. This Hon’ble Court has repeatedly held that relief

that is outside the pleadings of the party should not be granted.

2

42.1 Further, in the instant case, C.S. No. 45 of 2022 from

which O.S.A. No. 69 of 2022 arose, was for a decree declaring

2

Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 491 at Para 10-14.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 43 of 62

the notice convening the special synod meeting on 7

th

and 8

th

March 2022 as illegal and the learned Division Bench has

effectively decreed the suit even at the interlocutory stage

without any trial, evidence etc. and with great respect, on a wrong

premise that the relevant averments have not been denied.

Maintainability of the Suit:

43. It was further submitted that a Division Bench of the

Madras High Court has held that a suit against the CSI is not

maintainable without leave under Order 1 Rule 8.

3

In C.S. No.

45/2022 which was filed on 01.03.2022, interim relief was

granted on 10.03.2022 and leave under Order 1 Rule 8 was

granted only on 05.08.2022. It is the widely known rule that leave

under Order 1 Rule 8 can be granted at any stage however, in the

facts of the case, interim relief which in effect decreed the suit

could not have been granted, without leave. Moreover, the

procedure under Order 1 Rule 8 would have ensured that all

affected parties were heard.

Challenge to the order dated 12.04.2024 in O.S.A. No. 198/2023

and connected appeals:

Scope of learned Single Judge’s Reliance:

3

The Executive Committee of the Synod Church of South India v. Rt. Rev. Dr. V.

Devasahayam, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 1506 at Para 23.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 44 of 62

44. It was further submitted that learned Single Judge had

closed the applications in C.S. No. 274/2022 and C.S. No. 7/2023

leaving only C.S. No. 86/2022 for consideration. The prayer in

the C.S. No. 86/2022 is to frame a scheme, removal of Moderator

and direction of fresh elections, alleging only criminal cases

against the Moderator and not the validity of the amendment.

However, learned Single Judge relied on the averments and

prayers made in the applications filed in C.S. No. 274/2022 and

C.S. No. 7/2023 while considering the grant of interim relief.

Validity of Ratifications:

45. It was further contended that out of 24 dioceses, 16

ratifications would be needed to secure 2/3

rd

majority. It was also

submitted that: (a) the South Kerala Diocese had been restrained

from ratifying the proposed amendments; (b) there was no

meeting held in the Thoothukudi-Nazareth diocese; (c) the

meeting was held by Zoom in some other diocese, but that was

not permissible as the Constitution only provides for a physical

meeting. However, the learned Single Judge did not find the

ratification illegal on these grounds; instead, the bench stated that

the ratification lacked 2/3

rd

majority due to improper ratification

by Karnataka Central Diocese, Coimbatore Diocese, and Medak

Diocese.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 45 of 62

45.1 It was further submitted that there were no averments at

all regarding these three dioceses in the suit/application in C.S.

No. 86/2022. These dioceses were also not parties to the suit.

Thus, the learned Single Judge erred in finding the ratifications

to be improper in the absence of any pleading in the suit.

Interim Reliefs:

46. The learned counsel vehemently argued that averments

regarding improper ratification by the Medak and Coimbatore

diocese were made in C.S. No. 7/2023. The Diocese against

whom the allegations were made were also parties to C.S. No.

7/2023. However, having closed the applications in C.S. No.

7/2023, the learned Single Judge could not have relied on the

averments made in the closed suit/application.

46.1 It was further submitted that the interim relief that can be

granted in a suit must be incidental to and in aid of the main

relief. In this case, the main relief was for the framing of a

scheme. The only averments were about the criminal cases

against the Moderator. The amendments to the CSI constitution

were not in dispute at all. In these circumstances, a completely

different interim relief on an issue not presented in the plaint

could not have been granted.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 46 of 62

46.2 Further, this Hon’ble Court in the Supreme Court Bar

Association & Ors. v. B.D. Kaushik

4

categorically held that, an

interim relief in the nature of allowing the final relief should not

be granted lightly except in special circumstances. It was

respectfully submitted that in the present case no special

circumstances exist. In fact, the allegations of electoral college

in the case in hand being flawed, read with the observations made

in the Impugned Orders and the supporting judicial precedents

relied upon/ discussed by the Respondents will not apply to the

present case, as the margin of victory for the 3 office bearers

explicitly conveys the will of the majority non disputed electoral

college/voters. The learned Division Bench unfortunately did not

abide by the spirit of election and democracy, instead interdicted

the same at the instance of a few individuals.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT

Scope of the Appeal:

47. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

statement that the impugned orders virtually decides C.S. No.

86/2022 is false. The relief prayed for in C.S. No. 86 / 2022 is for

framing of a scheme for the administration of CSI. There is no

scheme framed in the Impugned Orders. In fact the Appellant’s

4

(2011) 13 SCC 774 at Para 38 and 39.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 47 of 62

actions in attempting to amend the CSI Constitution pending a

Scheme Suit was a blatant attempt to frustrate the suit.

47.1 It was further submitted that appellant misguidedly relied

on the doctrine of indoor management which has nothing

whatsoever to do with the present appointment of administrators.

47.2 Moreover, the appellant egregiously faults the Division

Bench for finding that the amendments did not secure the

necessary ratifications when the CSI itself has admitted this fact

in its O.S.A. Nos. 31-32/2024.

47.3 The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

reliefs prayed for specifically seek the framing of a scheme for

the administration of CSI including prescribing qualifications,

disqualifications, and terms of office for Synod membership. The

officer bearers are all members of the Synod, and the scheme

sought in the suit would necessarily cover each of their posts

which are part of the Synod.

Scope of Reliefs Sought:

48. It was further submitted that the powers of the Court is not

limited by the specific allegations contained in the plaint and can

consider subsequent events that affect the proper administration

of CSI. In any event in this present suit, the Plaintiff has

specifically prayed for framing a scheme under s.92(g) which is

not limited to any aspects, and further also prays for framing a

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 48 of 62

scheme under s.92(h) which expressly extends the power of the

Court to pass any orders as the nature of the case may require. As

such, it is clear that the power of the Court under s.92 is not

limited to the specific allegations of the Plaint alone and can

cover all subsequent and other facts as the Court considers

necessary in the nature of the case.

Appellant’s Locus Standi:

49. It was further submitted that C. Fernandas Rathina Raja,

appellant in his erstwhile position as General Secretary of CSI,

represented Defendant No. 2 in C.S. No. 86/2022 and Appellant

No. 2 in O.S.A. Nos. 31-32/2024. However, he has filed these

SLPs in his personal capacity. The issue at hand is limited to the

setting aside of the election of the Moderator. C. Fernandas

Rathina Raja as he has never been Moderator and can never be

the Moderator of CSI since he is not an ordained member of the

CSI Clergy, as only a Bishop can contest the Moderator’s

elections. Hence the C. Fernandas Rathina Raja is not affected in

any manner by the impugned order.

Validity of the Ratifications:

50. It was further contended that the learned Division Bench

in dismissing O.S.A. Nos. 31-32/2024 relied on the decision in

O.S.A. No. 69/2022 dated 27.02.2024 wherein it was held that

the amendments sought to be made to the CSI Constitution were

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 49 of 62

invalid on account of the invalidity of the Synod meeting which

was held on 07.03.2022 in which the proposed amendments were

passed. Although, the learned Division Bench dismissed O.S.A.

Nos. 31-32/2024 without considering the correctness of the

factual findings of the learned Single Judge that the amendments

had not been ratified by 2/3

rd

of the Diocesan Councils, however

it was obviated in view of the admission made by the CSI that

the Single Judge had correctly found that the necessary 2/3

rd

ratifications had not been secured.

Merits of the SLP:

51. Further, it was submitted that there are no grounds made

out at all for this Hon’ble Court to consider this SLP and certainly

no grounds for grant of any interim reliefs since the appointment

of the administrators only serves to protect CSI and the larger

interest of the CSI membership which is more important than

protecting the selfish motives of the Appellant who is only 1 out

of 45 lakh CSI members.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

52. We have heard the learned counsels representing the

respective parties at length and have meticulously examined the

records presented before us. The arguments advanced by both

sides have been duly considered, and all relevant materials, and

documentary evidence, have been thoroughly scrutinized.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 50 of 62

53. While expressing no opinion on the merits of the civil suits

itself and upon careful consideration of the orders passed by the

lower courts, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders

passed by the learned Single Judge except the findings regarding

Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, which is discussed later.

54. However, with respect to the orders passed by the learned

Division Bench it is our considered opinion that the said orders

are legally unsustainable and, consequently, warrant quashing.

The key issues that arise for consideration in the present appeals

are as follows:

(i) The validity of the Synod meeting convened on

07.03.2022, where certain amendments to the CSI

Constitution were approved.

(ii) The validity of the amendments to the Constitution

and Bye-Law of the CSI.

(iii) The validity of the Election of the Moderator.

(iv) Whether the elections of other office bearers i.e.

Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer

should be set aside due to alleged irregularities in the

Electoral College.

(v) Whether there should be an appointment of the

Committee of Administrators to conduct fresh elections.

(vi) Whether suits filed without obtaining leave under

Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC are maintainable.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 51 of 62

55. The Court shall now proceed to examine the issues

seriatim, undertaking a detailed analysis of each point raised in

the proceedings.

The validity of the Synod meeting convened on 07.03.2022,

where certain amendments to the CSI Constitution were

approved.

56. We are of the considered opinion that the Special Meeting

of the Synod on 07.03.2022 was duly convened. By going

through the minutes of the Special Executive Committee of the

Synod meeting held on 12.01.2022, it can be observed that: (a)

Executive Committee of the Synod decided to send a resolution

for the proposed constitutional and bye-law amendments to the

Synod for the consideration and approval at its Special Session;

(b) Executive Committee of the Synod decided to summon a

special meeting of the Synod for the aforesaid purposes and to

authorise the Moderator and other Officers of the Synod to fix

the time and place of the meeting in consultation with the

Bishops and (c) Executive Committee of the Synod decided to

direct the General Secretary to prepare and circulate the proposed

amendments to all the Bishops for forwarding the same to each

and every member of the Synod in their respective dioceses.

Thereafter, a Meeting Notice dated 10.02.2022 was issued by the

General Secretary of CSI, Mr. C. Fernandas Rathina Raja

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 52 of 62

informing all the members of the Synod that a decision to

convene a Special Synod Meeting on 7

th

and 8

th

March, 2022 at

Bishop Heber College has been taken by the Special Executive

Committee.

56.1 Therefore, in the absence of provisions in the CSI

Constitution regarding the manner of convening meetings of the

Synod, a 25 days’ notice was provided to the members of the

Synod prior to the Special Meeting of the Synod. Furthermore,

minutes of the Special Executive Committee Meeting clearly

reflect that Synod’s Executive Committee decided to submit

proposed constitutional and bye-law amendments to the Synod

for approval at a special session. The committee also resolved to

hold a special meeting for this purpose and instructed the General

Secretary to distribute the amendments to all Bishops, who

would then forward them to Synod members. 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. It can further be

concluded that large numbers of the members attended the

Special Meeting of the Synod and therefore the meeting cannot

be said to have been conducted without notice. Therefore, it can

prima facie be established that the Special Meeting of the Synod

on 07.03.2022 was duly convened.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 53 of 62

The validity of the amendments to the Constitution and Bye-

Law of the CSI.

57. The present amendments to the CSI Constitution and its

Bye-laws traces its origin in ordinary meeting of the Synod held

on 14

th

and 15

th

January, 2020. The Resolutions Committee’s

report from that meeting directed the Constitution Revision

Committee to develop the necessary amendments. Consequently,

the Constitution and Bye-Laws Revision Committee of the

Synod proposed amendments to the CSI Constitution and the

Bye-Laws, following Rules 2 & 3 of Chapter XIII of the CSI

Constitution. These proposed amendments were presented to the

Special Synod Executive Committee on 12.01.2022 and after

deliberation, the Executive Committee resolved to bring the

amendments before the Synod, in accordance with Rule 2 (a) of

Chapter XIII of the CSI Constitution. The main amendments

related to increase in age of retirement, change in qualifications

for post of General Secretary and Treasurer, and changes to the

Synod (electoral college). While the learned Single Judge held

that the proposed amendments to the bye-laws are valid, it

invalidated the proposed amendment to the Constitution for the

following reasons:

(i) One of the contested amendments to the CSI

Constitution is to increase the retirement age of clergy

from 67 years to 70 years. However, one of the

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 54 of 62

requirement to approve the amendment is ratification of

the proposed amendment by the 2/3

rd

Diocesan Councils

and in the present case, the prescribed procedure was not

followed since out of 15 diocesan councils who allegedly

ratified the amendments, two of them namely, CSI

Coimbatore Diocese and CSI Medak Diocese did not

adhered to the procedure by which ratification of the

proposed amendments must take place. Further, we are

unable to concur with the submission advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellants, which effectively

presumes or infers ratification of the proposed

constitutional amendments by certain Diocesan Councils,

based on statistical voting patterns or lack of objection

from absentee members. Such an approach cannot

substitute the mandatory procedural compliance explicitly

required under the Constitution of CSI which is a

statutorily required procedural step. Moreover, any

deviation from these procedural norms—such as

convening meetings with inadequate notice (as in the case

of Coimbatore), or relying on partial approval of select

amendments (as in the case of Nandyal), or presuming the

intent of silent or abstaining members—undermines the

sanctity and legitimacy of the ratification process.

Therefore, the requirement of ratification of the

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 55 of 62

amendment to the Constitution by 2/3

rd

Diocesan Councils

was not duly fulfilled and suffers from procedural

infirmities leading to the invalidity of the proposed

amendments. Consequently, the proposed amendments to

the Constitution are not enforceable and cannot be given

effect to. Therefore, order of learned Single Judge

granting interim injunction restraining the

respondents/defendants from giving effect to the

resolution passed in the meeting convened on 7

th

and 8

th

March 2022, with regard to the fixation of upper age for

the bishops and terms of elected members is sustained till

the disposal of the pending suits.

(ii) The proposed amendments to the bye-laws relate to

the qualifications of the General Secretary and Treasurer

of the Church of South India. Rule 3 of Chapter XIII of the

Constitution of CSI gives the power to the Executive

Committee of the Synod to frame rules, regulations and

bye-laws for the operation of the provisions of the

Constitution of CSI. However, in the absence of any

contradictory provisions in the Constitution of CSI, it can

be inferred that the power of the Executive Committee to

make bye-laws includes power to amend such bye-laws.

In the present case, the amendments to the bye-laws were

carried at the special session of the Synod and as discussed

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 56 of 62

earlier, the special meeting of the Synod held on

07.03.2022 was duly convened. Further, it can be seen

from the minutes of the special meeting of the Synod that

the amendments to the bye-laws were passed

unanimously. This unanimous passage at a duly convened

meeting supports the validity of the amendments to the

bye-laws.

58. Given the facts as set out above, we are not inclined to

interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge with

regards to the validity of the amendments to the Constitution and

the Bye-Laws of the CSI which are governed under Chapter XIII

of the CSI Constitution under Rule 2 and Rule 3. In consequence

thereof, the findings of the learned Division Bench regarding the

validity of the amendments to the bye-laws are hereby set aside.

The validity of the Election of the Moderator.

59. Taking into consideration the validity of the Election of

the Moderator, the learned Single Judge is correct in holding that

the said election of the Moderator is invalid. Rules 7 and 8 of

Chapter IX of CSI Constitution details the election and tenure of

the key Synod Officers including Moderator and Deputy

Moderator, who are elected from among diocesan bishops. All

officers, including the General Secretary and Treasurer, are

elected by Synod ballot. Their terms align with the Synod’s

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 57 of 62

ordinary meetings which according to Rule 20 of Chapter IX of

the CSI Constitution is required to be held once in every three

years. Further, bye-Law 7 of the CSI Constitution prescribes the

manner in which the election shall be conducted. It also

prescribes that the Bishop who is nominated by the Bishop’s

Council to be the Moderator should not be due to retire during

the ensuing term.

59.1 Accordingly, 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.” Since the Synod meets every

three years (Rule 20), it can be concluded that “ensuing term”

refers to the next three-year period. Therefore, the nominated

Bishop must have at least three years remaining before their

mandatory retirement at the time of nomination. In the present

case, since the incumbent Moderator completed the age of 67

years in May 2023 and elections were held on 11.10.2020 for the

three years period ending on 11.10.2023, it cannot be said that it

was a fair nomination and hence, lacks legitimacy and integrity

in the election process. Even after considering the amendment to

the Constitution by which the age limit for retirement was

increased to 70 years, as recorded earlier, the said amendment is

not enforceable since the same was not duly ratified which makes

the said amendment by which the age limit was increased as

invalid. Having regard to the above-mentioned facts, the election

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 58 of 62

of the Moderator is said to have been tainted, thereby affecting

its validity.

Whether the elections of other office bearers i.e. Deputy

Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer should be set

aside due to alleged irregularities in the Electoral College.

60. The learned Division Bench found that the electoral

college was flawed based on the grounds that some of the

diocesan councils do not comply with the requirements of the

CSI Constitution regarding the nominated members i.e. bye laws

states that number of members who should be below the age of

35 years and the number of women members. However, these

factual assertions do not bear the direct impact on the core issues

in the present applications, which pertains to the validity and

effect of the amendments in question on the electoral process.

The focus for consideration is not on the individual composition

of the diocesan council per se, but rather on whether the

amendments impacted the legitimacy of the election as a whole.

Therefore, the learned Division Bench has declared the electoral

college flawed without establishing the causal link to the

amendments in question. Accordingly, the findings of the learned

Division Bench is set aside on this point.

60.1 Since the findings and conclusions of the learned Division

Bench have been set aside, the order previously passed by the

learned Single Judge shall stand restored and will continue to

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 59 of 62

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.

Whether there should be an appointment of Committee of

Administrators to conduct fresh elections.

61. 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. Moreover, the records indicate that the office

bearers rushed the amendment process, despite the bye-law

allowing two years for ratification by diocesan councils. This

suggests they aimed to pass the amendments before the 2023–

2026 elections. 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.

Whether suits filed without obtaining leave under Order 1 Rule

8 of CPC are maintainable.

62. This Court is of the considered opinion that the position of

law regarding the applicability of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC is well

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 60 of 62

settled. Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not prescribe any stage at which

the application can be filed.

5

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.

63. Accordingly, 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 of the 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. Furthermore, the order

passed by the learned Division Bench in O.S.A. No. 188, 190 and

192 of 2023 is affirmed since application under Order 1 Rule 8

5

Krishnan Vasudevan v. Shareef, (2005) 12 SCC 180.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 61 of 62

is already pending in C.S. No. 7/2023. It is well settled law that

grant of leave under Order 1 Rule 8 is not prerequisite for grant

of interim reliefs since the permission under the said rule can be

granted at any stage of the proceedings.

In light of the foregoing reasons, the following orders passed

by the subordinate courts are hereby quashed by this Court:

64. In the light of aforementioned facts and circumstances, 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.

65. 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 7

th

and 8

th

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.

SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 62 of 62

66. 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. 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.

……………………………………J.

[BELA M. TRIVEDI]

……………………………………J.

[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

New Delhi

May 02, 2025