SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

C.S.No.7 of 2023 and A.No.54 and 55 of 2023 in C.S.No.86 of 2022 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. COMMON ORDER About three suits were instituted by members or Synod Council members of the Church of South India (CSI).  In the said suits, several interlocutory applications were filed.  Out of the three suits, one suit is  under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 

by ·

O.A.Nos.818 and 819 of 2022 in

C.S.No.274 of 2022 and

O.A.No.21 and 22 of 2023 in

C.S.No.7 of 2023 and

A.No.54 and 55 of 2023 in C.S.No.86 of 2022

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

COMMON ORDER

About three suits were instituted by members or Synod Council members of the Church of South India (CSI).  In the said suits, several interlocutory applications were filed.  Out of the three suits, one suit is  under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.  The immediate concern, at this juncture, is the election scheduled to be held tomorrow in respect of the following office bearers of the Synod: Moderator, Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer.  Therefore, this common order is only in the applications relevant thereto. The respondents have not filed counters in these applications and, therefore, the present common order is an ad interim order.

  1. The applicants / plaintiffs and the 6th defendant in C.S.No.7 of 2023 impugned the proposed election largely on the ground that the CSI seeks to hold the election by implementing material amendments to the Constitution although such amendments were not made in accordance with the

Constitution of the CSI.

  1. Oral arguments on behalf of the applicants / plaintiffs and the 6th defendant in C.S.No.7 of 2023 were addressed by Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned senior counsel, Mr.Thangasivan, Mr.Bharanidharan and Mr.Vineet Subramani, learned counsel.
  2. In summary, their submissions are as under:
    • the election is sought to be conducted on the basis of the impugned amendments so as to ensure that the incumbent office bearers are re-elected and continue in office.
    • Three specific amendments are assailed:
  • The increase in the age of retirement of clergy such as the bishop from 67 years to 70 years;
  • The deletion of the two term limit for office bearers; and
  • The right of the Moderator to appoint 15 additional Synod Council members instead of 10 previously.

(iii) These amendments are assailed on the following grounds:

  • As per the constitution of the CSI, amendments are required to be carried by a resolution supported by 2/3rds of the members of the Synod Council. According to learned counsel, the meeting held on 07.03.2022 could not be concluded due to commotion and the requisite majority did not approve of the proposed amendments to the Constitution.
  • After being passed by the 2/3rds majority of the Synod Council, such amendments are required to be ratified by not less than 2/3rd of the 24 diocesan councils.  According to them, 2/3rd of the diocesan councils did not ratify the amendments.  Since there are 24 dioceses and a like number of diocesan councils, even approval by 15 diocesan councils is insufficient.  By drawing reference to the proposed meetings of the Diocesan Council at Kareem Nagar, it was pointed out that no meeting was held on account of a Court order.   As regards the Medak Diocesan Council, it was pointed that the

Constitution required a notice period of not less than one month and this was not adhered to.  A Court order was referred to with regard to the meeting of the Coimbatore Diocesan Council and it was contended that the meeting could not have been held. As regards the Kanyakumari Diocesan Council, a Division Bench order of this Court was cited to contend that the Council is functional. Therefore, it was contended that 2/3rd of the diocesan councils did not ratify the amendments.

  1. These contentions are refuted by Mr.V.Prakash, learned seniorcounsel for the CSI and its principal office bearers. Learned senior counsel submitted that the amendments were approved by a 2/3rd majority of the Synod Council.  As regards ratification by the diocesan councils, he relied upon two documents.  By drawing reference to the minutes of the meeting of the Synod Executive Committee on 15.12.2022, he pointed out that the said minutes record that the 12 Diocesan Councils listed at page 8 of the minutes ratified the amendments.  He also pointed out that it was resolved to convened urgent meetings of the remaining diocesan councils and the working committee.  By drawing reference to the Synod Working Committee meeting on 27.12.2022, he pointed out that the 15 Diocesan Council listed on page 2 of the minutes of the meeting ratified the amendments.  According to learned senior counsel, the ordinary meeting to be held tomorrow is pursuant to these ratifications.  In this connection, he refers to the communication issued on 27.12.2022 by the General Secretary.
  2. By relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in

Dr.R.Jayakaran Issac v. The Church of South India, Synod, 2017-1-L.W.

150,  learned senior counsel contended that the amendments effected earlier were impugned in the said judgment and that the Court refused to interfere with the amendments made.  He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D.Kaushik,  (2011)13 SCC 774 for the proposition that interim relief which mirrors the final relief in the suit would ordinarily not be granted.  He also relied upon paragraphs 43 and 52 of the said judgment to contend that the Court would not ordinarily interdict the conduct of elections for the formation of the governing body of associations.

  1. The question that arises for consideration in light of the rival contentions is whether the election scheduled to take place tomorrow should be interfered with and, if so, in what manner. The principal ground on which the conduct of the election is impugned is that the amendments were not made in accordance with the Constitution.  In order to controvert this assertion, the respondents should have produced the minutes of the Synod Council meeting at which the relevant resolution was carried by a 2/3rd majority and the minutes of the 15 Diocesan Council meetings at which the amendments were ratified.  However, these documents have not been produced as on date.
  2. Learned senior counsel for the respondents states that these documents would be produced in due course and that there was insufficient time to produce the same. Instead, as discussed earlier, reliance is placed by the respondents on the minutes of the Synod Executive Committee meeting held on 15.12.2022 and the minutes of the Synod Working Committee meeting held on 27.12.2022.  The minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of the Synod indicate that 12 Diocesan  Councils ratified the resolution.  As regards at least two of these Dioceses, namely, Coimbatore and Medak, contentions were advanced by the applicants / plaintiffs and the 6th Defendant in C.S.No.7 of 2023 to the effect that the relevant diocesan council meetings could not have been held as asserted by the respondents. With reference to the list of 15 Diocesan Councils, which are said to have ratified the amendments, as per the minutes of the Working Committee meeting held on 27.12.2022, learned counsel for the applicants state that the meeting of the Karnataka Central Diocesan  Council could not have been held in view of an interim order which remained in operation until 05.01.2023.

Similarly, in respect of Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocesan Council, it is stated that there is documentary evidence that permission to conduct the meeting was denied by the police.

  1. Thus, prima facie, there is reason to entertain doubts as to whether the amendments were duly carried in accordance with the Constitution of the CSI. At the same time, it should be recognized that about 406 members are entitled to participate at the ordinary meeting tomorrow to elect the office bearers of the Synod.  A salutary rule in such matters is that a duly convened meeting, especially an election meeting, is not lightly interdicted because it affects numerous stakeholders.  Therefore, I do not intend to restrain the respondents from conducting the meeting tomorrow.  As regards the

amendments, the contentions of the applicants / plaintiffs to the effect that the amendments were not ratified by 15 diocesan councils, as contended by the respondents, cannot be brushed aside.  In order to balance the equities at this juncture, the following ad interim order is issued:

  • the conduct of the ordinary meeting of the Synod and the election is not restrained subject to the following conditions.
  • the entire proceedings shall be recorded by deploying

appropriate equipment and such audio visual recording shall be presented to this Court at the next hearing.

  • the elections shall be conducted by adopting the ballot process prescribed in the Constitution.
  • the results of the election shall not be declared until further orders.
  • All office bearers, who are elected but would have been ineligible but for the amendments, shall not be entitled to claim any equities in their favour when the interlocutory applications are taken up for disposal subsequently.
  • in view of direction (iv) above, the incumbent office bearers shall continue to hold office until further orders.
  1. List these applications on 30.01.2023. Counters shall be filed in the pending applications on that date after serving a copy thereof on the counter parties at least one day prior thereto.

 

12.01.2023

rna

Note: Issue Order copy on 12.01.2023

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

rna

O.A.Nos.818 and 819 of 2022 in

C.S.No.274 of 2022 and

O.A.No.21 and 22 of 2023 in

C.S.No.7 of 2023 and

A.No.54 and 55 of 2023 in

C.S.No.86 of 2022

 

12.01.2023

You may also like...

Call Now ButtonCALL ME