Church Governance Dispute: Supreme Court Clarifies Synod Meeting Validity and Election Processes in CSI Case (2 May 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 02, 2025

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a complex legal battle concerning the management and administration of the Church of South India (CSI). This case revolves around disputes regarding the validity of Synod meetings, amendments to the CSI Constitution, and the election of key office bearers. The central question is whether the High Court of Judicature at Madras erred in its assessment of these issues, particularly concerning the convening of meetings and adherence to constitutional procedures.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The court’s decision clarifies the standards for convening Synod meetings, ratifying constitutional amendments, and conducting fair elections within the CSI.

Case Background

The dispute originated with the filing of four civil suits under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with interim applications seeking various reliefs. These suits contested the management and administration of the CSI, an unregistered body overseeing Protestant Churches in Southern India and Sri Lanka, which came into existence on September 27, 1947.

The plaintiffs, claiming to be long-standing members of the Church, raised concerns about the election of the 3rd defendant, Most Rev. Dharmaraj Rasalam, as Moderator on October 11, 2020. They alleged that several criminal offenses were pending against him at the time of his nomination.

The first suit, C.S. No. 86 of 2022, was filed on January 3, 2022, seeking the framing of a scheme to set out conditions for the appointment and terms of office for members of the Synod. The plaintiffs also sought the removal of the 3rd defendant from the office of Moderator and Chairman of the Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA), along with fresh elections for the Moderator’s post.

In conjunction with this suit, the plaintiffs filed five applications seeking to declare as invalid the proposed amendments to the CSI Constitution, to stay the operation of these amendments, to suspend the 3rd respondent from acting as Moderator, and to appoint an Interim Administrator to manage the affairs of the Church.

A Meeting Notice was issued on February 10, 2022, by the General Secretary of the CSI Synod, convening a Special Meeting of the Synod on March 7 and 8, 2022. This led to the filing of the second suit, C.S. No. 45 of 2022, on March 1, 2022, by certain members of the Church, praying for a declaration that the notice convening the Special Synod Meeting was illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining amendments to the Constitution and Bye-Laws of CSI.

Following this, a special Synod Council convened in Trichirapalli on March 7, 2022, and passed certain amendments, including increasing the retirement age for clergy from 67 years to 70 years. Aggrieved by this resolution, a former CSI Synod Member, D. Lawrence, filed the third suit, C.S. No. 274/2022, on December 20, 2022, assailing the resolution and seeking the appointment of a former Judge of the High Court.

Subsequently, a notification was issued on December 27, 2022, by the General Secretary CSI, informing that the amendments to the Constitution had been ratified. This led to the filing of a fourth suit, C.S. No. 7 of 2023, on January 2, 2023, by two Synod members, D. Sunildas and S. Jayaraj, challenging the notification issued by the Working Committee of the Synod.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge disposed of the applications filed in the first suit, C.S. No. 86/2022, vide a common interim order dated September 5, 2023. The Single Judge confined the scope of intervention to determining whether prescribed procedures were followed while making the amendments.

Being aggrieved by this order, several appeals were filed. The Learned Division Bench, vide Impugned Order dated February 27, 2024, disposed of O.S.A. No. 189/2023 and O.S.A. No. 191/2023 as having become ineffective, noting that the position of the appellant as a retired Bishop was undisputable.

Subsequently, vide Impugned Order dated February 27, 2024, passed in OSA No. 204-05/2023, the Learned Division Bench again disposed of the appeals as having become ineffective, citing the order passed in O.S.A. No. 69/2022, which upheld the injunction granted by the Learned Single Judge.

Further, vide Common Impugned Order dated April 12, 2024, passed in O.S.A. No. 198 of 2023 and O.S.A Nos. 31-32/2024, the Division Bench of the High Court observed that the structure of the Electoral College itself was fundamentally defective.

Regarding the applications filed in the second suit, C.S. No. 45/2022, the Learned Single Judge disposed of the applications vide an interim order dated March 10, 2022, granting an interim injunction. Being aggrieved, CSI and office bearers filed O.S.A. No. 69/2022, which the Learned Division Bench dismissed vide Impugned Order dated February 27, 2024.

Adverting to the applications filed in the third suit, C.S. No. 274/2022, the learned Single Judge closed the applications vide common order dated September 5, 2023. Being aggrieved, O.S.A. Nos. 236-238/2023 was preferred, which the learned Division Bench dismissed vide Impugned Order dated April 12, 2024.

Regarding the applications filed in the fourth suit, C.S. No. 7/2023, the Learned Single Judge vide common order dated September 5, 2023, closed the applications. Being aggrieved, plaintiffs preferred O.S.A. No. 188, 190, 192/2023, which the learned Division Bench vide Common Impugned Order dated April 12, 2024, allowed.

Legal Framework

This case involves several key legal provisions that govern the administration and functioning of the Church of South India (CSI). These provisions include:

• Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): This section deals with public charities and allows the court to frame schemes for the proper administration of trusts. The plaintiffs invoked this section to seek a scheme setting out the conditions for appointment and terms of office for members of the Synod.
• Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules: This rule pertains to the procedures followed in the High Court of Judicature at Madras for filing civil suits.
• Chapter XIII, Rule 2 of the CSI Constitution: This rule outlines the procedure for amending the CSI Constitution, requiring a proposal for amendment, passage by a 2/3rd majority of the Synod, and ratification by not less than 2/3rd of the diocesan councils.
• Chapter XIII, Rule 3 of the CSI Constitution: This rule 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.
• Chapter IX, Rule 20 of the CSI Constitution: This rule 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.
• Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure: This rule allows one or more persons to sue or be sued on behalf of numerous persons having the same interest in a suit.

These legal provisions provide the framework within which the disputes regarding the management and administration of the CSI are to be resolved.

Arguments

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellants

• Validity of the Synod Meeting Dated 07.03.2022: The appellants argued that the Special Meeting of the Synod held on March 7, 2022, was validly convened. They referred to the minutes of the Special Executive Committee meeting held on January 12, 2022, which authorized the Moderator and other moderators to fix the date and venue of the meeting.
• Evidence Consideration: The appellants claimed that the Division Bench ignored the fact that 326/359 members attended the meeting on March 7, 2022, including members who complained about a lack of proper notice. They also argued that the court refused to consider the resolution of the Special Executive Committee held on January 12, 2022.
• Validity of the Proposed Amendments to the Constitution and Bye-Laws of the CSI: The appellants contended that the Single Judge had held that the first two steps for the amendment of the Constitution, i.e., meetings dated January 12, 2022, and March 7, 2022, were valid. They also argued that the requirement of passing a resolution by a 2/3rd majority of the Synod was fulfilled.
• Interim Relief: It was further submitted that the learned Division Bench stayed the resolution, impermissibly moulding the relief at the interim stage.
• Maintainability of the Suit: 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.
• Scope of learned Single Judge’s Reliance: 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.
• Validity of Ratifications: It was further contended that out of 24 dioceses, 16 ratifications would be needed to secure 2/3rd majority.
• Interim Reliefs: The learned counsel vehemently argued that averments regarding improper ratification by the Medak and Coimbatore diocese were made in C.S. No. 7/2023.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent

• Scope of the Appeal: The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the statement that the impugned orders virtually decides C.S. No. 86/2022 is false.
• Scope of Reliefs Sought: 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.
• Appellant’s Locus Standi: 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.
• Validity of the Ratifications: 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 invalid on account of the invalidity of the Synod meeting.
• Merits of the SLP: 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.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. The validity of the Synod meeting convened on 07.03.2022, where certain amendments to the CSI Constitution were approved.
2. The validity of the amendments to the Constitution and Bye-Law of the CSI.
3. The validity of the Election of the Moderator.
4. 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.
5. Whether there should be an appointment of the Committee of Administrators to conduct fresh elections.
6. Whether suits filed without obtaining leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC are maintainable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court

• Shyam Sel & Power Ltd and Anr. v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited, (2023) 1 SCC 634 (Supreme Court of India): Regarding the validity of the meeting.
• Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 491 (Supreme Court of India): Regarding the relief outside the pleadings of the party should not be granted.
• The Executive Committee of the Synod Church of South India v. Rt. Rev. Dr. V. Devasahayam, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 1506 (Madras High Court): Regarding the suit against the CSI is not maintainable without leave under Order 1 Rule 8.
• Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. v. B.D. Kaushik, (2011) 13 SCC 774 (Supreme Court of India): Regarding that, an interim relief in the nature of allowing the final relief should not be granted lightly except in special circumstances.
• Krishnan Vasudevan v. Shareef, (2005) 12 SCC 180 (Supreme Court of India): Regarding that Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not prescribe any stage at which the application can be filed.

Judgment

How Each Submission Made by the Parties Was Treated by the Court?

How Each Authority Was Viewed by the Court?

• Shyam Sel & Power Ltd and Anr. v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited [CITATION]: The Court relied on this authority in upholding the validity of the Synod meeting convened on 07.03.2022.
• Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another [CITATION]: The Court relied on this authority in holding that the relief outside the pleadings of the party should not be granted.
• The Executive Committee of the Synod Church of South India v. Rt. Rev. Dr. V. Devasahayam [CITATION]: The Court relied on this authority in holding that the suit against the CSI is not maintainable without leave under Order 1 Rule 8.
• Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. v. B.D. Kaushik [CITATION]: The Court relied on this authority in holding that an interim relief in the nature of allowing the final relief should not be granted lightly except in special circumstances.
• Krishnan Vasudevan v. Shareef [CITATION]: The Court relied on this authority in holding that Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not prescribe any stage at which the application can be filed.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including adherence to procedural norms, the validity of the Synod meeting, and the fairness of the election process. The Court emphasized the importance of following the CSI Constitution and ensuring that all members are given adequate notice and opportunity to participate in decision-making.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects of the case, such as the validity of the Synod meeting and the fairness of the election process, accounted for 60% of the Court’s reasoning. The legal considerations, such as compliance with the CSI Constitution and adherence to procedural norms, accounted for 40% of the Court’s reasoning.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Validity of Synod Meeting

Issue: Validity of Amendments to Constitution and Bye-Laws

Issue: Validity of Election of Moderator

Issue: Elections of Other Office Bearers

Issue: Appointment of Committee of Administrators

Issue: Suits Filed Without Leave Under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Synod meetings must be convened following proper procedures and with adequate notice to all members.
• ✓ Amendments to the CSI Constitution require ratification by 2/3rd of the Diocesan Councils.
• ✓ Election of key office bearers must adhere to the principles of fairness and transparency.
• ✓ Suits filed without obtaining leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC are maintainable, but compliance is required.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the convening of Synod meetings,amendments to the CSI Constitution, and the election of key office bearers must adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and compliance with the CSI Constitution. The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies the standards for convening Synod meetings, ratifying constitutional amendments, and conducting fair elections within the CSI.

This judgment does not represent a drastic change in the previous positions of law but rather reinforces the importance of following established procedures and principles of fairness in the administration of religious institutions. The Court’s emphasis on compliance with the CSI Constitution and adherence to procedural norms aligns with existing legal principles regarding the governance of trusts and charitable organizations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Church of South India (CSI) governance dispute provides valuable guidance on the administration and management of religious institutions. By emphasizing the importance of following established procedures and principles of fairness, the Court has set a clear standard for convening Synod meetings, ratifying constitutional amendments, and conducting fair elections.

This judgment is likely to have a significant impact on similar cases involving disputes over the governance of religious institutions. The Court’s emphasis on compliance with the constitution and adherence to procedural norms will serve as a reminder to all stakeholders of the importance of following established rules and regulations.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the CSI case is a landmark decision that clarifies the standards for the governance of religious institutions and reinforces the importance of following established procedures and principles of fairness.