# Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 622
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-02
- **Bench:** Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-vimal-sukumar-v-d-lawrence-ors-38691
- **Pages:** 47

## Headnote

The instant appeals are arising out of the two impugned orders
dated 27.02.2024 and 12.04.2024 by which the Division Bench of
the 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,
it was 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 (CSI) and it was held that
the Special Meeting of the Synod held on 7th and 8th March 2022
was not duly convened. 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.
Headnotes†
Election - Constitution of Church of South India - Chapter XIII -
The validity of the Synod meeting convened on 07.03.2022,
where certain amendments to the CSI Constitution were
approved:
Held: This Court is of the considered opinion that the Special
Meeting of the Synod on 07.03.2022 was duly convened - By
* Author
1732
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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, informing all the members of the Synod that a decision to
convene a Special Synod Meeting on 7th and 8th March, 2022 at
Bishop Heber College has been taken by the Special Executive
Committee - 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 - 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.
[Paras 56, 56.1]
Election - Constitution of Church of South India - Chapter
XIII - Amendment to the Constitution and Bye-laws - The
validity of the amendments to the Constitution and Bye Law
of the CSI:
Held: The present amendments to the CSI Constitution and its
Bye-laws traces its origin in ordinary meeting of the Synod held
on 14th and 15th January, 2020 - The Resolutions Committee's
report from that meeting directed the Constitution Revision
Committee to develop the necessary amendments - Consequently,
t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,743 of 99,619. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39743 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1731 : 2025 INSC 622
Dr. Vimal Sukumar
v.
D. Lawrence & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 6264-6266 of 2025)
02 May 2025
[Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The instant appeals are arising out of the two impugned orders
dated 27.02.2024 and 12.04.2024 by which the Division Bench of
the 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,
it was 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 (CSI) and it was held that
the Special Meeting of the Synod held on 7th and 8th March 2022
was not duly convened. 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.
Headnotes†
Election - Constitution of Church of South India - Chapter XIII -
The validity of the Synod meeting convened on 07.03.2022,
where certain amendments to the CSI Constitution were
approved:
Held: This Court is of the considered opinion that the Special
Meeting of the Synod on 07.03.2022 was duly convened - By
* Author
1732
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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, informing all the members of the Synod that a decision to
convene a Special Synod Meeting on 7th and 8th March, 2022 at
Bishop Heber College has been taken by the Special Executive
Committee - 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 - 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.
[Paras 56, 56.1]
Election - Constitution of Church of South India - Chapter
XIII - Amendment to the Constitution and Bye-laws - The
validity of the amendments to the Constitution and Bye Law
of the CSI:
Held: The present amendments to the CSI Constitution and its
Bye-laws traces its origin in ordinary meeting of the Synod held
on 14th and 15th 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1733
Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.
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 Single Judge held that the proposed amendments to
the bye-laws are valid, it invalidated the proposed amendment to
the Constitution - This Court is not inclined to interfere with the
findings of the Single Judge of the High Court 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 Division Bench of the High Court regarding the
validity of the amendments to the bye-laws are hereby set aside.
[Paras 57, 58]
Election - Constitution of Church of South India - Chapter IX -
Election of the Moderator - The validity of the Election of the
Moderator:
Held: Taking into consideration the validity of the Election of the
Moderator, the 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 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 - 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
1734
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 of the Moderator is said
to have been tainted, thereby affecting its validity. [Paras 59, 59.1]
Election - Constitution of Church of South India - 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:
Held: The 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
Division Bench has declared the electoral college flawed without
establishing the causal link to the amendments in question -
Accordingly, the findings of the Division Bench is set aside on this
point - The order previously passed by the Single Judge shall
stand restored - 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. [Paras 60, 60.1]
Election - Constitution of Church of South India - Whether
there should be an appointment of Committee of Administrators
to conduct fresh elections:
Held: 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1735
Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.
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
Single Judge of the High Court regarding the appointment and role
of retired High Court judge in the election process is sustained.
[Para 61]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.1 R.8 - Constitution of
Church of South India - Whether suits filed without obtaining
leave u/Or.1 R.8 of CPC are maintainable.
Held: This Court is of the considered opinion that the position
of law regarding the applicability of Or.1 R.8 of CPC is well
settled - Or.1 R.8 CPC does not prescribe any stage at which
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 Or.1 R.8 is a curable
defect, its compliance remains crucial to ensure the enforceability
and representative effect of the orders passed - Leave under Or.1
R.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 - Accordingly, this Court
concurs with the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court
passed in O.S.A. Nos.236, 237 and 238 of 2023 - Furthermore,
the order passed by the Division Bench in O.S.A. No.188, 190 and
192 of 2023 is affirmed - It is well settled law that grant of leave
u/Or.1 R.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. [Para 62]
Constitution of Church of South India - Power to amend the
CSI Constitution:
Held: This Court recognizes 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. [Para 66]
1736
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Shyam Sel & Power Ltd and Anr. v. Shyam Steel Industries Limited
[2022] 3 SCR 1173 : (2023) 1 SCC 634; Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima
Mandal and Another [2008] 14 SCR 621 : (2008) 17 SCC 491;
Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. v. B.D. Kaushik [2011] 15
SCR 736 : (2011) 13 SCC 774 - referred to.
The Executive Committee of the Synod Church of South
India v. Rt. Rev. Dr. V. Devasahayam, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad
1506 - referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Companies Act, 2013.
List of Keywords
Constitution of Church of South India; Bye-laws; Management and
administration of the CSI; Church of South India Trust Association;
CSI Synod; Power to amend the CSI Constitution; Election;
Amendments to the bye-laws; Validity of the Synod meeting;
Election of the Moderator; Deputy Moderator; General Secretary;
Treasurer; Election of office bearers; Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC;
Bishops; Special Meeting of the Synod.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 6264-6266
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in OSA Nos. 236, 237 and 238 of 2023
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 6267, 6268, 6269-6271, 6272-6273, 62746276, 6277, 6278, 6279-6280, 6281, 6282-6284, 6285-6287, 6288,
6289-6294 and 6295 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shoeb Alam, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Dama Seshadri Naidu, V.
Prakash, Navin Pahwa, Sr. Advs., A Karthik, Kailas Bajirao Autade,
A. Lakshminarayanan, Kumar Singh, Vairawan A.S, Pranjal Kishore,
Adrian D. Rozario, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Mandeep Kalra.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1737
Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Dr. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Liz Mathew, Raghenth
Basant, V. Prabhakar, Sr. Advs., Vairawan A.S, Ms. Ranu Purohit,
V. Balaji, Rakesh K. Sharma, Pranav Sachdeva, Jatin Bhardwaj,
S. Thanka Sivan, Ms. Astha Tyagi, P. S. Sudheer, Manish Tiwari,
Rk Tanwar, Pranjal Kishore, Vineet Subramani, Shyam Gopal,
Shwetank Sailakwal, Azhar Assees, Radha Shyam Jena, Ms.
Ruchi Gupta, M.P. Srivignesh, Manu Srinath, Ms. E. R. Sumathy,
Pai Amit, Ms. Usha Nandini V., Goutham Shivshankar, S. Thanka
Sivan, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Pranav Sachdeva, Jatin Bhardwaj.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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 byelaws 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 the Synod held on
7th and 8th 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 which is in-charge of the
functions of the protestant Churches in Southern India and in Sri
Lanka. This un-registered body of persons christened as CSI came
1738
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
into existence on the 27th 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. Dispute arose when the 3rd
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 11.10.2023. The plaintiffs contended that the 3rd
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 1st defendant.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1739
Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.
b.
Removing the 3rd defendant from the office of Moderator
of the Church of South India, the 1st defendant herein,
c.
Consequently, removing the 3rd defendant as the Chairman
of the CSITA, the 2nd defendant herein,
d.
Directing the 1st defendant to hold fresh elections to the
office of the Moderator of the Synod of the 1st defendant,
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 Meeting
of the Synod on 7th and 8th 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 to the issuance of the
1740
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 Synod Meeting
of the 1st Defendant on 7th and 8th 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 Special
Meeting of the Synod of the 1st Defendant on 7th and 8th
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 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;
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1741
Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.
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 Synod on 7th and 8th 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 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
1742
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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:
a.
Declaring the resolution dated 7.3.2022 of 1st 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 managing the
affairs of the 1st 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1743
Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.
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.
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 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:
1744
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
"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 issued by the 1st
defendant through the 4th 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 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 1st 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 affairs of the 1st defendant
and for enquiring into all pending disputes affecting or
relating to the electoral college of Church of South India
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1745
Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.
and the constituent dioceses of the 1st 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
the 1st 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.
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 1st 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 1st respondent/ defendant and for enquiring
into all pending disputes affecting or relating to the electoral
college of Church of South India Synod and the constituent
dioceses of the 1st 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 the 1st respondent/
defendant, pending disposal of the above suit.
1746
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
ratified by 2/3rd of the Diocesan Councils as CSI allegedly
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;
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1747
Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.
(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
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
1748
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to the CSI Constitution and the bye-laws appears to have
been satisfied. As stated earlier, the second requirement
is for the Synod to approve the amendments by not less
than a 2/3rd 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 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:
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1749
Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors.
"(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 amendments, the requisite 2/3rd 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.
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.