Holding

The Special Synod meeting was valid, the constitutional amendments were invalid for lack of requisite ratification, the bye‑law amendments were valid, the Moderator's election was invalid, the other office‑bearers' elections stand, a Committee of Administrators is justified, and suits without Order 1 Rule 8 leave are maintainable as a curable defect.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined appeals challenging two Madras High Court orders that declared the 7‑3‑2022 Special Synod meeting of the Church of South India (CSI) invalid, set aside the amendments to the CSI Constitution, and ordered re‑election of all office bearers. The Court held that the Special Synod meeting was duly convened following proper notice and procedural steps. It found that the constitutional amendments were not ratified by the required two‑thirds of diocesan councils, rendering them invalid, while the bye‑law amendments were valid. Consequently, the election of the Moderator was declared invalid, but the elections of the Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer were upheld. The Court affirmed the appointment of a Committee of Administrators to conduct fresh elections for the Moderator and clarified that suits filed without prior leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC are maintainable, with the defect being curable. All impugned orders of the High Court were set aside and the appeals were disposed of.

Issues considered

The validity of the Special Synod meeting convened on 07.03.2022
The validity of the amendments to the CSI Constitution and Bye‑laws
The validity of the election of the Moderator
Whether the elections of other office bearers should be set aside due to alleged electoral‑college irregularities
The necessity of appointing a Committee of Administrators to conduct fresh elections
The maintainability of suits filed without obtaining leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC

Legislation cited

Headnote

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 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

Subjects

Constitution of Church of South IndiaBye-lawsManagement and administration of the CSIChurch of South India Trust AssociationCSI SynodPower to amend the CSI ConstitutionElectionAmendments to the bye-lawsValidity of the Synod meetingElection of the ModeratorDeputy ModeratorGeneral SecretaryTreasurerElection of office bearersOrder 1 Rule 8 of CPCBishopsSpecial Meeting of the Synod

Judgment

[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, 6274-
6276, 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 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 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. In effect, the
ratifications of two thirds of the diocesan councils are
1750 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1751

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

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
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
1752 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1753

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

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 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
1754 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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 finding
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1755

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

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.
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 13th and 15th
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:
1756 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“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 the
Synod held on 13th and 15th 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 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 Hon’ble
Mr. Justice V. Bharathidasan, retired Judges of the HC
were appointed as the member of the said committee.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1757

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

(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 injunction, restraining the
defendants from giving effect to the resolutions passed in the meeting
convened by the 1st Respondent/D. Lawrence on 7th and 8th 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 on 7th and 8th March 2022 was taken by the
1758 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Executive Committee meeting held on 12.01.2022. The Court was
of the opinion that the very convening of the Special Meeting of the
Synod on 7th and 8th March 2022 is vitiated. The relevant extract is
reproduced is as under:
“13. In the light of the above facts, we are of the considered
opinion that the very convening of the Special Meeting of
the Synod on 7th 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 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:
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1759

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

“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 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
1760 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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.
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:
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1761

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

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 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 Limited.1
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.

1 (2023) 1 SCC 634 at Para 37.
1762 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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 age and 37 voted against it. Therefore, it was
submitted that the requirement of passing of resolution by
2/3rd 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1763

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

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 taken
as 21 and not 22. Consequently, 2/3rd 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
dioceses have voted in favour of the ratification, the 2/3rd
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 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
1764 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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 and this comfortably crosses the 2/3rd
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 amendments, which is
more than a 2/3rd 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.
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. 1765

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.

2 Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 491 at Para 10-14.
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.
1766 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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. 1767

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.

4 (2011) 13 SCC 774 at Para 38 and 39.
1768 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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. 1769

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 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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. 1771

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 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(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. 1773

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 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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. 1775

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.

5 Krishnan Vasudevan v. Shareef, (2005) 12 SCC 180.
1776 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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. 1777

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