Summary
Interlocutory appeals in four suits over the Church of South India: a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had held the Special Synod meeting of 07.03.2022 not duly convened, declared the electoral college flawed, set aside the election of all Synod office bearers and appointed administrators. The Supreme Court set aside those orders and restored the Single Judge's prima facie findings: the Special Synod was duly convened; the constitutional amendments (including raising the clergy retirement age to 70) were not validly ratified by two-thirds of the diocesan councils and remain stayed, while the bye-law amendments were valid; the Moderator's election was invalid and a retired Judge will conduct a fresh election; the other office bearers' elections stand subject to the suits; and leave under Order I Rule 8 CPC, obtainable at any stage, is not a precondition for interim relief.
Issues
- Whether the Special Meeting of the CSI Synod convened on 07.03.2022, at which amendments to the CSI Constitution were approved, was validly convened.
- Whether the amendments to the Constitution and to the bye-laws of the CSI were validly made and ratified.
- Whether the election of the Moderator was valid.
- Whether the elections of the Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer should be set aside for alleged irregularities in the electoral college.
- Whether a committee of administrators should be appointed to conduct fresh elections.
- Whether suits filed, and interim orders passed, without leave under Order I Rule 8 CPC are maintainable.
Provisions considered
- Order I Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order I Rule 8 permits one or more persons to sue or defend on behalf of all persons having the same interest with the permission of the Court, and a decree so passed binds all of them. The Court held that the rule prescribes no stage for the application; leave is not a mandatory precondition for instituting the suit or for interim relief and its absence is a curable defect, but compliance bears on the binding and representative effect of orders, which may not bind the entire CSI membership until leave is granted. (¶¶ 28, 30, 33, 43, 53, 62, 63, 64)
- Section 92(1)(g) and (h), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The first suit was a scheme suit under Section 92 seeking the settling of a scheme and further relief for the administration of the CSI; the Court noted the framework but expressed no opinion on the merits of the suits. (¶¶ 3, 7, 48, 66)
- Chapter XIII Rules 2 and 3; Chapter IX Rules 7, 8 and 20; Bye-law 7, Constitution of the Church of South IndiaChapter XIII Rule 2 requires a constitutional amendment to be proposed, passed by a two-thirds majority of the Synod and ratified by not less than two-thirds of the diocesan councils before the General Secretary declares it in force; Rule 3 empowers the Synod Executive Committee to frame bye-laws, which the Court read as including the power to amend them. Chapter IX Rule 20 concerns the summoning of Synod meetings, Rules 7 and 8 the election and tenure of officers, and Bye-law 7 requires that the Bishop nominated as Moderator should not be due to retire during the ensuing term. (¶¶ 20, 27, 56, 56.1, 57, 58, 59, 59.1)
Held
- The Special Meeting of the Synod on 07.03.2022 was duly convened: the minutes of the Special Executive Committee of 12.01.2022 record decisions to place the proposed amendments before a special session, to summon the special meeting and authorise the Moderator and officers to fix its time and place, and to circulate the amendments; a notice dated 10.02.2022 gave 25 days' notice in the absence of any constitutional provision on the manner of convening meetings, and a large number of members attended. The Division Bench's contrary finding in O.S.A. No. 69 of 2022 was set aside. (¶¶ 56, 56.1, 64)
- The constitutional amendments, including the increase of the clergy retirement age from 67 to 70, were not validly ratified by two-thirds of the diocesan councils, since the Coimbatore and Medak ratifications did not follow the prescribed procedure. Ratification cannot be presumed from voting patterns, from the silence of absentee members or from partial approval of select amendments (as with Nandyal); such deviations undermine the legitimacy of the ratification process. The amendments are therefore unenforceable and the Single Judge's interim injunction against giving effect to the resolution on the upper age of bishops and the term of elected members stands till disposal of the suits. (¶¶ 57, 58, 65)
- The power of the Synod Executive Committee under Chapter XIII Rule 3 to frame bye-laws includes, absent any contrary provision, the power to amend them; the bye-law amendments on the qualifications of the General Secretary and Treasurer were passed unanimously at a duly convened special session and are valid. The Division Bench's findings on the bye-law amendments were set aside. (¶¶ 57, 58)
- The election of the Moderator was invalid. Bye-law 7 requires that the Bishop nominated as Moderator should not be due to retire during the ensuing term, which, given triennial ordinary meetings under Chapter IX Rule 20, means at least three years must remain before mandatory retirement; the incumbent, elected on 11.10.2020 for a term ending 11.10.2023, completed 67 years in May 2023, and the amendment raising the age to 70 was unenforceable for want of ratification. (¶¶ 59, 59.1)
- The Division Bench declared the electoral college flawed because several diocesan councils had not complied with requirements on members below 35 and women members, but those matters do not bear on the issue in the applications, which is whether the amendments affected the legitimacy of the election; having found no causal link, the finding was set aside. The Single Judge's order was restored, so the elections of the Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer stand valid, subject to the outcome of the suits. (¶¶ 60, 60.1)
- Since the Moderator's election is invalid and the institution of 4.5 million members should not function without a Moderator until the suits are decided, and since the office bearers rushed the amendment process despite the two-year ratification window, the Single Judge's direction appointing a retired High Court Judge as election officer to conduct the Moderator's election for the 2023-2026 term was sustained. (¶ 61)
- Order I Rule 8 CPC prescribes no stage for seeking leave; leave is not a mandatory precondition for instituting a suit or for interim relief and its absence is a curable defect, but compliance bears on the binding and representative effect of orders, which may not bind the entire membership until leave is formally granted. The Division Bench's dismissal of the appeals in C.S. No. 274 of 2022, where no application was pending, was upheld, and its order in the appeals in C.S. No. 7 of 2023, where the application was pending, affirmed; the Single Judge's findings closing the interim applications for want of leave were quashed. (¶¶ 62, 63, 64)
Result
Appeals disposed of; Division Bench orders dated 27.02.2024 (O.S.A. Nos. 69/2022, 189/2023, 191/2023, 204-205/2023) and 12.04.2024 (O.S.A. Nos. 198/2023, 31-32/2024) set aside to the extent indicated; Single Judge's findings of 05.09.2023 on Order I Rule 8 CPC in C.S. Nos. 274/2022 and 7/2023 quashed, his order otherwise restored; interim injunction against giving effect to the 7-8 March 2022 resolution on the upper age of Bishops and tenure of elected members to continue until disposal of the suits; observations prima facie only.