2016 (12) TMI 1823 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds Church of South India's Constitution amendments and bye-laws, allowing election process to proceed.

The court dismissed the appeals, affirming the validity of the amendments to the Church of South India's Constitution and the newly framed bye-laws. The ... Election of the Office Bearers of the Church of South India - Amendment to the Constitution of the Church of South India - mode and manner of election of the office bearers - Whether the procedure prescribed for election in the bye-laws so framed can be said to be in derogation of the Constitution in any manner? HELD THAT:- The Constitution is the governing book to facilitate the functioning of the Churches and provides a democratic process for elections to various office bearers. The Constitution itself provides the procedure for amendments and the documents placed before the learned Single Judge show that such amendment was made by following the procedure at least prima facie - Similarly, the enacting of the bye-laws is also something which is enshrined in Rule 3 of Chapter XIII and there also prima facie view has been found that it has been made as per the procedure. In fact, both have received overwhelming mandate of 16 out of the 22 Diocesan Councils. The answer to the question raised would be in the negative - The bye-laws do refer to the principle of nomination by the Bishops from among themselves of the person who has to be elected as the Moderator and the Deputy Moderator. Similarly, for the General Secretary and the Treasurer also a Committee is constituted which would make the nomination, instead of Bishops nominating from amongst themselves. The Committee formed for nomination, in fact, is of a wider spectrum, including apart from Bishop, one Clergy and three lay persons, who bring the names before the Synod for the said posts and the vote is however with the Synod to elect the person. Thus, what is envisaged is a check before the elections. Whether this check would defeat the principle of secret ballot or franchise principle of majority in any manner? - HELD THAT:- Once again the answer would be in the negative for the reason that the final say is with the Synod. The election has to take place from among the Bishops, who in a religious hierarchy are at the highest level. They from amongst them would find a suitable person and that too by unanimity or a overwhelming majority of two-third. The matter does not end at this since the Synod would have to ratify the same by a simple majority. Thus, if a member of the Synod is not happy with the nomination, they have a right of rejection - The final say thus remains with the Synod, but the collective wisdom of the Bishops as to who among them should be the Moderator has been given weightage. This cannot ipso facto be called a derogation of the Constitution, especially when the bye-laws have been approved, as also the amendment to the Constitution. The position would be the same in case of Deputy Moderator and the only difference for the posts of General Secretary and Treasurer would be that the nomination would be of the Committee which is, in fact, a more representative body as constituted. Prima facie the bye-laws cannot be said to be in derogation of the Constitution and thus for the coming election process both the amended constitution and the bye-laws as framed would apply. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of amendments to the Constitution of the Church of South India.2. Validity of the bye-laws concerning the election process of office bearers.3. Whether the bye-laws are in derogation of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Amendments to the Constitution of the Church of South India:The case involves a dispute among members of the Church of South India regarding amendments to the Church's Constitution and the election process of office bearers. The Constitution's preamble outlines its origins and traditions, emphasizing its autonomous status and lack of registration under any enactment. The Constitution specifies the structure and responsibilities of the Church's ministry, including Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and details the Synod's composition and election process.The amendments in question were brought into force in November 2015, extending the tenure of elected Synod Members by one year. A suit (C.S.No.20 of 2016) was filed seeking to declare these amendments as having only prospective effect, not retrospective, and to prevent the current office bearers from continuing beyond their original term. However, no interim relief was granted, and the new elections were scheduled for January 2017.An earlier suit (C.S.No.396 of 2015) challenged the amendments on various grounds, including changes to the retirement age for Bishops and Presbyters, and the introduction of new bye-laws. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the implementation of these amendments and bye-laws, but again, no interim orders were obtained.2. Validity of the Bye-laws Concerning the Election Process of Office Bearers:The interim applications related to these suits were dismissed by a common order on August 12, 2016. The learned Single Judge noted that the Constitution was amended following the due procedure, with 16 out of 22 Diocesan Councils ratifying the amendments. The bye-laws, enacted for the first time in 70 years, were also approved through the proper process.The appellants argued that the bye-laws, which introduced a nomination process for electing the Moderator, Deputy Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer, were in derogation of the Constitution. They contended that the Constitution envisages a democratic process with secret ballots, allowing the 406 Synod Members to elect these officers directly. The bye-laws, however, introduced a system where Bishops nominate candidates, subject to ratification by the Synod, which the appellants claimed undermined the democratic principles of the Constitution.3. Whether the Bye-laws are in Derogation of the Constitution:The respondents countered that the bye-laws were consistent with the Constitution and provided necessary checks and balances. They argued that the final authority remained with the Synod, as the Synod could reject the Bishops' nomination by a simple majority. The election process still required the Synod's approval, ensuring that the democratic principles were upheld.The court concluded that the bye-laws did not derogate from the Constitution. The nomination process by the Bishops, followed by ratification by the Synod, was seen as a check before the election, not a violation of the democratic process. The court emphasized that the final decision rested with the Synod, maintaining the principle of majority rule. The amendments and bye-laws had been duly approved, and the court found no merit in the appeals.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the amendments to the Constitution and the newly framed bye-laws were valid and consistent with the Constitution. The election process for the upcoming elections would proceed under the amended Constitution and the bye-laws. The court's views were expressed as prima facie and would not prejudice the trial in the ongoing suits.