DR. VIMAL SUKUMAR versus D. LAWRENCE & ORS.

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. 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 [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors. 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 that is outside the pleadings of the party should not be granted.2 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 the notice convening the special synod meeting on 7th and 8th 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 maintainable without leave under Order 1 Rule 8.3 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. Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 491 at Para 10-14. The Executive Committee of the Synod Church of South India v. Rt. Rev. Dr. V. Devasahayam, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 1506 at Para 23. 1766 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:

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 ratifications would be needed to secure 2/3rd 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 the ratification lacked 2/3rd majority due to improper ratification by Karnataka Central Diocese, Coimbatore Diocese, and Medak Diocese. 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 [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors. 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. 46.2 Further, this Hon’ble Court in the Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. v. B.D. Kaushik4 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 actions in attempting to amend the CSI Constitution pending a Scheme Suit was a blatant attempt to frustrate the suit. (2011) 13 SCC 774 at Para 38 and 39. 1768 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 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 [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors. 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 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 had not been ratified by 2/3rd of the Diocesan Councils, however it was obviated in view of the admission made by the CSI that the Single Judge had correctly found that the necessary 2/3rd 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.

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 1770 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.

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 informing all the [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors. 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. 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. 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 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 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 1772 (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 requirement to approve the amendment is ratification of the proposed amendment by the 2/3rd 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 amendment to the Constitution by 2/3rd 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 resolution passed in the meeting convened on 7th and 8th 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 [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors. 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 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 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 1774 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 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 [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors. to 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 settled. Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not prescribe any stage at which the application can be filed.5 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. Krishnan Vasudevan v. Shareef, (2005) 12 SCC 180. 1776

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 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 resolution passed in the meeting convened on 7th and 8th 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.

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 [2025] 5 S.C.R.  Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors. 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. Result of the case: Appeals disposed of. †Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan