Supreme Court Holds Synod Meeting Valid but Declares Constitutional Amendments Unenforceable; Moderator’s Election Set Aside, Election Officer to Conduct Fresh Poll

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard civil appeals arising from multiple writs and suits challenging actions of the Church of South India (CSI), including the validity of a Special Synod meeting held on 7–8 March 2022, proposed amendments to the CSI Constitution and bye‑laws, and the elections held thereafter. The appeals arose from two impugned Division Bench orders of the Madras High Court dated 27.02.2024 and 12.04.2024 which had declared re‑elections and appointed a committee of administrators after finding the electoral college flawed and the Special Synod meeting improperly convened.

The Court allowed leave and examined the record. It held that the Special Meeting of the Synod on 07.03.2022 was duly convened, but that the procedural requirement of ratification by two‑thirds of diocesan councils for amendments to the Constitution had not been satisfied; consequently the contested constitutional amendments could not be given effect. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s orders insofar as they declared the electoral college fundamentally defective and appointed administrators to conduct all re‑elections, and it restored in part the Single Judge’s interim conclusions. The Court upheld the Single Judge’s conclusion that “the election of the Moderator is invalid” because the impugned constitutional amendment (raising retirement age) was not duly ratified and therefore could not validate the Moderator’s candidature. At the same time the Court found that amendments to the bye‑laws were prima facie carried at the special session and that the elections of Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer could stand subject to final adjudication, given the limited practical impact of certain amendments on the electoral composition. The Court directed that a retired High Court judge be appointed as election officer to conduct a fresh election for the Moderator for the 2023–2026 term and granted an interim injunction restraining respondents from giving effect to the resolutions of the 7–8 March 2022 meeting insofar as they fixed the upper age for bishops and tenure of elected members, until final disposal of the suits. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.”

Background Disputes arose after the Synod considered and purportedly carried amendments proposed initially at the ordinary Synod meeting in January 2020 and later presented at a Special Synod session in March 2022, including an increase in clergy retirement age from 67 to 70 and changes to qualifications and electoral composition. Several civil suits under Order IV Rule 1 and Section 92 CPC challenged the convening of the Special Meeting, the ratification process, the 27.12.2022 notification declaring amendments in force, and sought framing of a scheme, removal of the Moderator and appointment of administrators to conduct fresh elections. The Single Judge on 05.09.2023 viewed the video and minutes, concluded prima facie that the 07.03.2022 meeting was duly convened, found that ratification by the requisite two‑thirds of diocesan councils was lacking (noting prima facie invalid ratifications by Coimbatore, Medak and Karnataka Central in earlier orders), and held the Moderator’s election prima facie invalid while declining to appoint an interim administrator for the entire CSI but recommending an independent election officer. The Division Bench thereafter treated various appeals as ineffective and, in separate orders, found the Special Meeting vitiated, described the electoral college as flawed, and appointed a committee of administrators to conduct re‑elections. The Supreme Court, after hearing parties, quashed the Division Bench orders to that extent, sustained the Single Judge’s findings that the Constitution’s amendment procedure was not complied with and that the Moderator’s election was invalid, validated the bye‑law amendments prima facie, restored the Single Judge’s approach to other office‑bearers’ elections (to stand subject to suit outcomes), affirmed that leave under Order I Rule 8 CPC was curable and may be granted at any stage, and ordered appointment of a retired judge as election officer while granting an interim injunction against implementing the March 2022 resolutions on age and tenure until final adjudication. The Court emphasised that its observations were prima facie and did not decide the suits on merits.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 622 Case Title: Dr. Vimal Sukumar v. D. Lawrence & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in judgment For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in judgment