CSI Dispute : Supreme Court Restrains HC-Appointed Administrators From Taking Decisions For Elections Or Administration Of Church Of South India

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 22) restrained the interim committee of Retired High Court Judges appointed to oversee the elections to the synod of the Church of South India (CSI) from taking any steps towards holding elections to the synod or dealing with the administration of the CSI as an interim measure. The direction has been made in a challenge to the Madras High Court's appointment of the interim committee in a suit filed seeking fresh elections to the CSI and declaring the amendments to the CSI constitution invalid. The vacation bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petitions challenging the HC order, directed the following : "....without expressing any prima facie opinion on the merits of the case, it is hereby directed that the administrators appointed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 12.4.2024 shall not take any decision with regard to the holding of elections or with regard to the administration of the CSI and trust till the next date of hearing." Justice Trivedi had verbally clarified that presently the Court is only limiting the committee to take any administrative steps. "We are not setting aside the appointment of the administrator, we are saying they will not take any decision." The Court posted the matter in the 3rd week of July on NMD (non-miscellaneous day), the learned Counsel's AORs accept the notice on behalf of the concerned respondents in all the petitionsThe impugned order of the Madras High Court bench of Justice R Subramaniam and Justice R Sakthivel on April 12 appointed a committee of two retired High Court judges to take over the administration of the Church of South India (CSI) and to conduct the election of the Synod. The court thus appointed retired judges Justice R Balasubramanian and Justice V Bharathidasan to take immediate charge of the administration as well as the Trust Association and administer the same till the conduct of elections. The court added that the administrators were at liberty to appoint other retired District Judges to assist them in the process and were to be paid a remuneration of Rs. 10,00,000 and Rs. 3,00,00 to the District Judges as initial remuneration.Before the Supreme Court, Mr Dharmaraj Rasalam, who is the moderator of the CSI, challenged the impugned order broadly on the grounds that (1) it would be incorrect to set aside his election as he was not procedurally disqualified because of his age (below 67 years); (2) the amendment to the CSI Constitution were passed in a fair manner, with a total of 15 out of 22 Diocesan Councils ratifying the amendments as on 27.12.2022; (3) The 15 Councils constituted 2/3 rd majority needed to amend the CSI Constitution.The treasurer, secretary and the Madras Bishop of the CSI church also filed separate Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court. 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.Mr Dharmaraj Rasalam was represented by Advocate Pranjal Kishore.Case Details : DR. VIMAL SUKUMAR VS. D LAWRENCE Diary no. 16987/2024 and Other Connected Matters Click Here To Read/Download Order

CSI Dispute : Supreme Court Restrains HC-Appointed Administrators From Taking Decisions For Elections Or Administration Of Church Of South India

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags