The Supreme Court of India, on May 2, ruled that the 2020 election of Bishop Dharmaraj Rasalam as the Moderator of the Church of South India (CSI) was illegal. The decision comes amid a long-standing legal dispute concerning the church’s internal governance.
The Court held that Rasalam’s election was against the mandatory rule which requires a nominee for the Moderator’s post to have at least three years remaining before retirement. Since Rasalam turned 67 in May 2023, his nomination in the 2020 election for a term ending in 2023 did not meet this condition. As a result, his election was declared invalid.
Read Also:- Petition Filed in Supreme Court Challenging YouTube Channel '4PM' Block and Validity of IT Blocking Rules
“The nominated Bishop must have at least three years remaining before retirement at the time of nomination,” the Court stated.
However, the elections for other positions like Deputy Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer were found to be valid. These individuals can continue in their roles, subject to the final outcome of ongoing litigation.
“The election of other office bearers shall be deemed valid and continue to hold legal sanctity,” the Court observed.
Read Also:- Gang Rape Conviction | One Accused's Act Can Implicate All if Common Intention Exists: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court also addressed amendments passed during the CSI Synod's Special Meeting held on March 7, 2022. These changes, which concerned increasing the retirement age of bishops and the tenure of elected members, were ordered to be frozen. The Court imposed an interim injunction, preventing any effect being given to these amendments until the final verdict in the Madras High Court cases.
“There shall be an interim injunction restraining the implementation of the 07.03.2022 resolution,” the Court ordered.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Death Row Convict’s Plea for Relief Under 'Manoj' Judgment
Although the Court accepted that the Synod meeting followed due process, it emphasized that the constitutional amendments made in that meeting were not enforceable. This was because they were not ratified properly within the time allowed.
A bench led by Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict in response to multiple appeals challenging earlier decisions by the Madras High Court. The judges upheld the High Court's order to appoint two retired High Court judges to oversee fresh elections for the Moderator post.
“These facts warrant the appointment of election officers for fresh moderator elections,” the Court noted.
Read Also:- Mandatory Prescription of Generic Drugs Can Curb Pharma Bribery, Says Supreme Court
The Court clarified that its observations are only preliminary and do not affect the final judgment of the High Court cases. The main petition in the case seeks the removal of the current Moderator, fresh elections, and the declaration that the recent constitutional amendments are invalid.
The Madras High Court earlier held that the single judge who first reviewed the case failed to consider several administrative irregularities and flaws in the election process. Particularly, the formation of the Electoral College was challenged as being flawed. This was seen as a serious issue, since a faulty Electoral College could invalidate the entire election.
“If the Electoral College itself is defective, the election cannot be held valid,” the High Court had noted.
Case Title: DR. VIMAL SUKUMAR vs D LAWRENCE AND ORS. | SLP(C) No. 9079-9081/2024
