CSI dispute: SC declares Dharmaraj Rasalam’s election as moderator illegal, freezes amendments

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday invalidated the 2020 election of Bishop Dharmaraj Rasalam as Moderator of the Church of South India (CSI), citing non-compliance with eligibility norms. The Court held that Rasalam did not meet the mandatory requirement of having at least three years of service left before retirement.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict while hearing a batch of appeals challenging a Madras High Court decision. The apex court upheld the High Court’s direction to appoint two retired judges as administrators to oversee fresh elections for the post of Moderator.

At the same time, the Court validated the elections of other Synod office bearers, including the Deputy Moderator, General Secretary, and Treasurer, ruling that those polls were not vitiated.

The Court also froze the implementation of amendments passed during a Special Synod Meeting held on March 7, 2022, concerning the retirement age of Bishops and the tenure of elected members. These changes, it said, should remain in abeyance until the final resolution of related suits pending before the Madras High Court.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s ruling against the validity of the March 2022 Synod meeting itself, clarifying that its current findings are prima facie and will not influence the outcome of the ongoing litigation.

The dispute stemmed from a civil suit filed by members of the CSI seeking Rasalam’s removal, annulment of the constitutional amendments, and the appointment of an interim administrator. Initially, a single-judge bench of the High Court had struck down the Moderator's election but declined to interfere with the election of other office bearers due to the majority of votes they received.

Challenging this, the respondents argued that the entire Electoral College was flawed, thus tainting all elections. The High Court later accepted this contention, asserting that strict adherence to electoral procedures was essential and that the single judge had erred in limiting the scope of the order.
(With LiveLaw inputs)