Dr. Vimal Sukumar vs. D Lawrence

2025 INSC 622
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAVI ARORA
Date: 2025.05.03
15:39:37 IST
Reason:
SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 1 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 2 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
th th
the Synod held on 7 and 8 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 3 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
th
persons christened as CSI came into existence on the 27
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.
rd
Dispute arose when the 3 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 4 of 62


rd
11.10.2023. The plaintiffs contended that the 3 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
st
1 defendant.
rd
b. Removing the 3 defendant from the office of
st
Moderator of the Church of South India, the 1
defendant herein,
rd
c. Consequently, removing the 3 defendant as
nd
the Chairman of the CSITA, the 2 defendant
herein,
st
d. Directing the 1 defendant to hold fresh
elections to the office of the Moderator of the Synod
st
of the 1 defendant,
SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 5 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
th th
Meeting of the Synod on 7 and 8 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 6 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
st th th
Synod Meeting of the 1 Defendant on 7 and 8
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
st
Special Meeting of the Synod of the 1 Defendant on
th th
7 and 8 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 7 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
th th
Synod on 7 and 8 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 8 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 9 of 62


st
a. Declaring the resolution dated 7.3.2022 of 1
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
st
managing the affairs of the 1 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 10 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 11 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
st th
issued by the 1 defendant through the 4 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 12 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
st
1 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
st
affairs of the 1 defendant and for enquiring into all
pending disputes affecting or relating to the
electoral college of Church of South India and the
st
constituent dioceses of the 1 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
st
the Constitution of the 1 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 13 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
st
1 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
st
1 respondent/ defendant and for enquiring into all
pending disputes affecting or relating to the
electoral college of Church of South India Synod
st
and the constituent dioceses of the 1
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 14 of 62


st
the 1 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
rd
ratified by 2/3 of the Diocesan Councils as CSI allegedly
SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 15 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 16 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 17 of 62


have been satisfied. As stated earlier, the second
requirement is for the Synod to approve the
rd
amendments by not less than a 2/3 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 18 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
rd
amendments, the requisite 2/3 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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
th th
13 and 15 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
th th
the Synod held on 13 and 15 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 28 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 29 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 30 of 62


injunction , restraining the defendants from giving effect to the
st
resolutions passed in the meeting convened by the 1
th th
Respondent/D. Lawrence on 7 and 8 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
th th
on 7 and 8 March 2022 was taken by the Executive Committee
meeting held on 12.01.2022. The Court was of the opinion that
th
the very convening of the Special Meeting of the Synod on 7
th
and 8 March 2022 is vitiated. The relevant extract is reproduced
is as under:

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


“ 13 . In the light of the above facts, we are of the
considered opinion that the very convening of the
th
Special Meeting of the Synod on 7 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 32 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 33 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 34 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 35 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 36 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
1
Limited.
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 37 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 38 of 62


age and 37 voted against it. Therefore, it was submitted that the
rd
requirement of passing of resolution by 2/3 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
rd
taken as 21 and not 22. Consequently, 2/3 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
rd
dioceses have voted in favour of the ratification, the 2/3
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 39 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 40 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
rd
and this comfortably crosses the 2/3 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
rd
amendments, which is more than a 2/3 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 41 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
2
that is outside the pleadings of the party should not be granted.
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 42 of 62


th th
the notice convening the special synod meeting on 7 and 8
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
3
maintainable without leave under Order 1 Rule 8. 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 43 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
rd
ratifications would be needed to secure 2/3 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
rd
the ratification lacked 2/3 majority due to improper ratification
by Karnataka Central Diocese, Coimbatore Diocese, and Medak
Diocese.
SLP (C) Nos. 9079-9081 of 2024 & Ors. Page 44 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 45 of 62


46.2 Further, this Hon’ble Court in the Supreme Court Bar
4
Association & Ors. v. B.D. Kaushik 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 46 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 47 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 48 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
rd
had not been ratified by 2/3 of the Diocesan Councils, however
it was obviated in view of the admission made by the CSI that
rd
the Single Judge had correctly found that the necessary 2/3
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 49 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 50 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 51 of 62


informing all the members of the Synod that a decision to
th th
convene a Special Synod Meeting on 7 and 8 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 52 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
th th
on 14 and 15 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 53 of 62


requirement to approve the amendment is ratification of
rd
the proposed amendment by the 2/3 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 54 of 62


rd
amendment to the Constitution by 2/3 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
th th
resolution passed in the meeting convened on 7 and 8
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 55 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 56 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 57 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 58 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 59 of 62


settled. Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not prescribe any stage at which
5
the application can be filed. 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 60 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
th th
resolution passed in the meeting convened on 7 and 8 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 61 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

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