Church Of South India Dispute : Supreme Court Holds Election Of Dharmaraj Rasalam As CSI Moderator Illegal, Freezes Amendments

In relation to the dispute concerning the Church of South India (CSI), the Supreme Court on Friday (May 2) held that the election of Bishop Dharmaraj Rasalam as the Moderator of the CSI Church in the elections held in 2020 was illegal.

The Court also ordered that the resolution passed by the Synod in its Special Meeting held on 07.03.2022 approving the amendments related to the age of Bishops and the tenure of the elected members should not be given effect to till the final disposal of the suits pending in the Madras High Court in relation to the administration of CSI church.

However, the Supreme Court set aside the findings of the Madras High Court against the validity of the Synod meeting convened in March 2022.

The Court declared the election of Moderator as illegal on the ground that the elected person did not meet the mandatory requirement that he should have three years left before retirement. At the same time, the elections conducted for the other office bearers were held as valid.

Since the election of the Moderator was set aside, the Supreme Court sustained the High Court's direction to appoint two retired HC judges as administrators to conduct elections. The Court clarified that its findings are prima facie in nature and do not relfect upon the merits of the suits pending adjudication.

A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the verdict in a batch of appeals filed against the Madras High Court's verdict.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma pronounced the key findings of the verdict as follows :

On the validity of the Special Meeting of the Syod : Due process was followed in the convening and the conduct of the Synod meeting on 07.03.2022 where the amendments to the Constitution and bye-laws were approved. A large number of members attended the meeting. The meeting cannot be said to be without notice. It is prima facie established that the special meeting of the Synod 07.03.2022 was duly convened.

On the validity of the amendments :  We are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned single judge with regard to the validity of the amendments of the Constitution and bye-laws of the CSI .The findings of the Division Bench regarding the validity of the amendments are hereby set aside.

On the validity of the election of moderator : The core issue for the consideration of 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, it can be concluded that the ensuing term refers to the next three-year period. Therefore, the nominated Bishop must have at least three years remaining before the 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 the elections were held on 11.10.2020,  for the three-year period ending on 11.10.2023, it cannot be said that it was a fair nomination and hence lacks legitimacy in the election process. Even after considering the amendments to the Constitution by which the age limit for retirement was increased as 70 years, the said amendment is not enforceable since the same was not duly ratified, which makes the amendment, by which the age limit was increased, as invalid. Hence, the election of the moderator is said to have been vitiated.

On the election of other office bearers: The election of other office bearers, deputy moderator, general secretary and treasurer, shall be deemed valid and continue to hold legal sanctity, but subject to the outcome of the suit.

On whether administrators are to be appointed for fresh elections: Since the election of the moderator is declared to be illegal, 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 suits. Moreover, the record indicates that the office bearers rushed the amendment process, despite the bye-laws allowing two years for ratification by the diocesan councils.  This suggests the aim to pass the amendments before the 2023-2026 elections. These facts warrant the appointment of election officers to conduct the moderator's election for that time. Therefore, the finding of the learned single judge regarding the appointment and the role of retired High Court judges in the election process is sustained.

Conclusions of the Court

The conclusions of the judgment were read out as follows :

1. The common order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned single judge, findings regarding Order 1 Rule 8 CPC are quashed to that extent.

2. The impugned order dated 12.04.2024 of the division bench and the order dated 27.02.2024 of the division bench are set aside to the said extent

"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 07.03.2022 concerning the fixation of the age for the bishops and the tenure of elected members until the final disposal of the pending suits. However, it is made clear that the observations contained in the order are prima facie in nature and shall not be construed as a reflection on the merits of the suits," the Court stated.

The main suit was filed by the Respondents seeking the removal of the moderator of the CSI; fresh elections for the position; declaring the proposed amendment to the CSI constitution as invalid, illegal, null and void and appointing an interim administrator to take over the affairs of the CSI. The matter arose from the initial order of the single-judge bench of the High Court which observed that the amendments made to the constitution of CSI were without following due process and found the election to the post of moderator to be vitiated. The single judge had however refused to interfere with the election of other posts noting the majority of votes polled by the candidates.

The respondents had pointed out that the single judge had not considered the irregularities and other instances of maladministration. It was submitted that there were serious flaws in the constitution of the Electoral College for the election of the office bearers of the Synod including the Moderator, Deputy Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer. It was submitted that once the electoral college is itself found to be flawed, the election has to go and office bearers should not be allowed to function.

The High Court agreed with this submission and held that the single judge had erred in refusing to interfere with the election noting that results will not be impacted. The court noted that there needed to be strict adherence to the procedures in election laws.

DR. VIMAL SUKUMAR vs D LAWRENCE AND ORS. | SLP(C) No. 9079-9081/2024 

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 525

Click here to read the judgment