Dismissed

Samaluru Raja v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2021WP/14017/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a Writ Petition under Article 226 regarding the internal election, selection, and appointment of a Bishop by the Church of South India Rayalaseema Diocese is not maintainable as the Church is a private body not discharging public functions. The appointment followed the Church's Constitution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000 payable by the petitioners to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association.

Samaluru Raja Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.14017 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The 1^st and 2^nd petitioners are the members of the Diocesan Council Members of Church of South India Rayalaseema Diocese. The 3^rd petitioner is not even Member of the Church. They field this Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Mandate in Ref.No.M1/2019/258/2020 dated 24.9.2020 issued by Respondent No.7 revalidating the earlier Mandate issued through Ref.No.M1(07)2019.297 dated 4.1.2020 enabling Respondent No.9 to summon a meeting of Executive Committee of Diocesan Council to elect a Lay Sub-Committee for conducting of elections for formation of Bishopric Panel for appointment of a Bishop for the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese Council and also the consequential Certificate of Election, dated 22.2.2021 issued by him in appointing the Respondent No.11 as Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese, without there being any election for Bishopric Panel as arbitrary, illegal, quite contrary to the Constitution of the Church of South India and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct Respondent No.7 to issue fresh Mandate for formation of Bishopric panel for appointment of Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese, R.S.Road, Kadapa, YSR District, by setting aside the Mandate issued in Ref.No.M1/2019/258/2020 dated 24.9.2020 and also the Certificate of Election dated 22.2.2021 issued by Respondent No.7 appointing Respondent No.11 as Bishop of the Church of South India Rayalaseema Diocese.

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

This Court, by order dated 20.7.2021, suspended the certificate of election dated 22.2.2021.

¶9

Respondents 7, 8 and 11 filed their counter along with Vacate Stay Petition in I.A.No.5/2021. Learned counsel for the respondents appearing for Respondents 7 to 11 expressed their urgency to take up hearing of the Vacate Petitions as the election of the 11^th respondent as Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese was suspended by this Court, thereby the administration of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese went into pell-mell. For better administration of the Diocese, an elected Bishop shall be available. The Writ Petition is not maintainable before this Court for conduct of fresh elections, by setting aside the certificate of election issued in favour of the 11^th respondent.

¶10

The case of the petitioners is that the 1^st petitioner is the contributing and communicant member of Church of South India (Rural Pulivendula and also Diocese Member). The 2^nd petitioner is contributing and communicant member of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. They are by birth Christian Baptized, having faith, trust and belief in the holy religion of Christian community and Bible scriptures. Respondents 1 to 7 are the statutory obligatory bodies with statutory duties, subject to their vested and enormous capacities in discharging the objectives of the Church, while holding their chairs in their respective capacities. The term of the Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese was expired in the year 2016, whereas the election for 2016-2019 Triennium was not conducted. The earlier Bishop retired on 13.8.2019 due to superannuation and there is no elected Bishop of the Church of

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

South India, Rayalaseema Diocese since 13.8.2019. Therefore, the 7^th respondent was taking care of the administration of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese as per the provisions of Chapter V Rule 16 of the constitution of the Church of South India. The 7^th respondent as per Rule 2 of Chapter VI of the Constitution of the Church of South India had issued a Mandate through proceedings Ref.No.M1(07)/2019/207 dated 04.01.2020 enabling Respondent No.9 to summon a meeting of the Executive Council of the Rayalaseema Diocesan Council to elect a Lay Sub Committee for the purpose of conducting elections for formation of Bishopric panel for appointment of a Bishop for the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. In pursuance of the same, a Five (5) Member Lay Sub Committee was constituted by Respondent No.9 on 04.02.2020 under the Chairpersonship of Dr. Wesley. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, election for formation of the Bishopric panel for appointment of Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese could not be conducted. Therefore, the Chairperson, Lay Sub Committee addressed a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, State of Andhra Pradesh explaining the circumstances under which the elections for appointment of Bishop for the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese could not be conducted and requested him to give special permission to hold a meeting for appointment of the Bishop on 02.07.2020, subject to following COVID-19 protocols at the meeting. No permission was accorded by Respondents 1 to 4. In view of the same, the meeting for formation of the Bishopric Panel consisting four (4) members for appointment of Bishop for the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese could not be conducted within the period of Mandate issued by Respondent No.7. As per Rule 2 of

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

Chapter VI of the Constitution of the Church of South India, the Mandate would be valid only for a period of six (6) months from the date of its issuance. The Mandate which was issued on 04.01.2020 was expired on 03.07.2020, thereby the Lay Sub Committee which was constituted in pursuance of the Mandate dated 04.01.2020 became inoperative after expiry of the Mandate. Hence, the 7^th respondent is obligated to issue a fresh Mandate for summoning the formation of Bishopric panel consisting of four (4) members for appointment of a Bishop for the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese from among the empanelled (4) four members of Bishopric panel. Surprisingly, the 7^th respondent revalidated the earlier mandate through proceedings Ref No.M1/2019/258/2020 dated 24.9.2020 which was issued on 04.01.2020 even though he is not empowered to do so quite contrary to the rules of the Constitution of the Church of South India. In pursuance of the same, Lay Sub Committee proposed to convene Bishopric panel meeting on 3.12.2020 at Arogyavaram Medical Center, Madanapalli with the Diocesan Council voters numbering around 325. One Mr A. Arogyadas, the Member, Church of South India, Central Church, Kadapa, Y.S.R.District addressed a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Minister bringing to his notice that convening a Bishopric panel meeting proposed to be held on 3.12.2020 assembling at one place in masses which may exceed 400 (325 Voters + Observers + Invitees etc.) would pose danger to the lives of the voters and there is every chance of spreading of COVID-19 and requested not to give permission to the Lay Sub Committee of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese to conduct proposed Bishopric panel meeting and see that the same should not be held. Similar requests received from various places.

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

The Assistant Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Minister vide letter dated 31.8.2020 called for action taken report on the complaint submitted by the Mr Arogyadas and others. The 3^rd respondent having enquired into the representation submitted by Mr Arogyadas, prepared an action taken report dated 23.9.2020 and communicated the same to the Assistant Secretary to Hon’ble Chief Minster through letter dated 6.10.2020. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent informed the 3^rd respondent not to permit the 7^th respondent and the Lay Sub Committee to hold the Bishopric Panel elections for the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese as proposed on 03.12.2020 or till such time, pandemic menace is over and also requested the 3^rd respondent to obtain permission from the concerned District Collector before holding the Bishopric panel elections for the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. Neither the 3^rd respondent sought for such permission nor Respondents 4 and 5 have granted permission for conducting Bishopric panel elections for the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese after 20.10.2020, whereas Respondent No.7 issued the impugned certificate of election dated 22.2.2021 appointing Respondent No.11 as the Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese, R.S.Road, Kadapa, Y.S.R.District without conducting the election for formation of the Bishopric panel. The said action of the 7^th respondent is being assailed in this Writ Petition.

¶23

Respondents 7 and 8 filed counter and 11^th respondent also filed counter on similar lines to that of the counter filed by the 7^th and 8^th respondents. A preliminary objection was taken with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, revalidation of the Mandate of the 7^th respondent

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

to hold elections for formation of Bishopric four (4) member panel for selection and appointment of the Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese and conduct of election for formation of Bishopric panel and issuance of election certificate to the 11^th respondent is challenged. But, the petitioners are indirectly challenging the elections that took place on 03.12.2020. In pursuance of the elections held on 03.12.2020, four (4) member Bishopric panel was formed for selection of the Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. As per Rule 31 of Chapter VI of the Constitution of the Church of South India, Synod Centre, the Selection Board interviewed four Presbyters in the Bishopric panel and unanimously selected the 11^th respondent as the Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese and sought confirmation of the members of the Executive Committee. The executive council in its meeting held on 21.02.2021, resolved to convene the Bishop's Consecration at CSI Central Church, Kadapa on 22.02.2021 and to organise the installation of the new Bishop immediately followed by the Consecration of the Bishop. As per Chapter VI of Rule 2 of the Constitution of the Church of South India, the appointment of 11^th respondent as the Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese was confirmed on 22.02.2021 and accordingly, appointed the 11^th respondent as Consecrated new Bishop of CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese as per Rule 40 of Chapter VI of the constitution of the Church of South India. The certificate of election and appointment was issued by Church of South India Synod - the 7^th respondent on 22.02.2021. The 7^th respondent is not a State within the meaning and scope of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The State neither has pervasive control over the affairs of Respondent No.7 nor grants

¶28

7 MGR, J

¶29

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

¶30

any financial aid to it. The Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA) is a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1913 (now the Companies Act) and Rayalaseema Diocese is one of the diocese out of 26 dioceses under the said CSITA. The Church of South India is an autonomous church body. Each Diocese will have a bishop who is the Episcopal head of the particular diocese. The election, appointment and consecration of the Bishop is governed by the Constitution of Church of South India, particularly Chapter VI thereon deals with the said aspect, which deals with Church and settlement of disputes. In the light of the said constitutional provisions of the Church of South India, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable before this Court in respect of the matters touching upon the affairs, proceedings relating thereto of Respondent No.7. The Chapter XI B of the constitution of the Church of South India deals “Settlement of Disputes” in respect of Diocesan and synod elections as set out under Rule 29 to 35, which deals with the settlement of disputes by way of conciliation and arbitration. If at all the Writ Petitioners have any grievance, they have to work out their grievances and remedies through the alternative dispute resolution mechanism provided under the constitution of the Church of South India to which every member of Church subscribes to and is bound by. The Respondents 1 to 4 are not required to evaluate the safeguards provided in the constitution for protection of minorities and laws passed by the State Government. Respondents 1 to 4 have no role to play in the matter of conduct of elections, governance of respondent No.7 as an entity at the diocesan level or for that matter CSITA at the Synod level. The Respondents 1 to 4 were

¶31

8 MGR, J

¶32

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

¶33

added in this Writ Petition with a mala fide intention to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, without any basis or justification. The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to ventilate the grievance of a private party as against a private individual/entity and the writ petitioners have to seek only common law remedy as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in catena of judgments. The petitioners have played fraud on the Court by not mentioning correct material facts in its proper perspective. The Writ Petitioners have participated in the Bishopric election process, casted their votes in favour of their contestants and attended the ceremony of consecration of Respondent No.11 who is elected, appointed and consecrated Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. The consecration was held on 22.2.2021 and the 11^th respondent took over the charge as the Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese on 22.2.2021 and discharging his duties since then. The writ petitioners have suppressed their participation in the Bishopric panel election process, which amounts to suppression of material fact and played fraud. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold as the writ petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. No Diocese shall remain without a Bishop, as the Bishop is the important functionary in the affairs of the Church. The important functions of the Bishop are not only for proper administration of the Church but also being Chairperson of the Church Board, Educational Board, Economic Welfare Board, Hostel Board and in fostering the development of the evangelistic, pastoral, educational and other work of the Church in the Diocese and in addition to the above, distribution of funds, preparation of budget, planning for the next term Diocese and he is

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

also the Episcopal head of the Church of Diocese. The petitioners raised several disputed questions of fact, which require adjudication based on pleadings, documents and evidence. Hence, the writ petitioners cannot invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Chapter XI of the constitution of the Church of South India itself provides with the discipline of church and settlement of disputes and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court.

¶38

Counter further states that the petitioners have filed Writ Petition without impleading proper parties in proper manner as required under law. The description of Respondents 7 to 10 as shown in the cause title is misleading and incorrect. The CSITA is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at No.5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai and the same is known as SYNOD. It was registered under Section 26 of the Companies Act, 1913 (Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956). The CSITA in terms of its Memorandum of Articles of Association is holding body of all properties both movable and immovable of a religious body known as the Church of South India. The Church of South India is a religious organization formed on 27.09.1947 as a result of the union of various churches of different denominations such as Anglican, Methodist, Protestants and other denominations. The Church of South India is governed by its own constitution known as Constitution of the Church of South India. The Church of South India is spread over entire South India comprising of Tamilnadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and also Jaffna (Sri Lanka). The affairs of the Church of South India are governed by the body called Synod which is the supreme governing legislative

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

body of the Church of South India and final authority in all matters pertaining to the church. It has the power to make rules and to pass resolutions and take executive actions, as may be necessary from time to time. Every Diocese is represented in the Synod and the Synod elects its own officers for every three years. They are the Moderator, Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer. The whole actions of the Church of South India are governed by a constitution called The Constitution of the Church of South India. For the purpose of administrative convenience, Church of South India is divided into 26 ecclesiastical districts and each such district is known as a Diocese. Each Diocese has got different territorial area. The Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese comprises of 4 geographical revenue districts viz., Kadapa, Ananthapuram, Kurnool, Chittoor Districts. Every Diocese has a Bishop as the Head of the Church of South India in their respective Dioceses. It is the Bishop of the Diocese, who is the supreme authority over the churches situated within the territorial area. At the Diocesan level also there is a constitution which is required to be adhered to by the members. Kadapa is the Headquarters for the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. Subject to the constitution of the Church of South India, every Diocese may have its own constitution and regulations to govern the internal affairs of the Diocese and Rayalaseema Diocese has its own constitution called the Constitution of Rayalaseema Diocese. Each Diocese have a Diocesan Council to deal with the affairs of the Diocese concerned. Each Diocese is divided into pastorates, which are the primary organized group of Christians, at the local level. A pastorate committee of the Church is a combination of an elected body elected by the members of the

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

Church and nominees by the Bishop. The tenure of a Pastorate committee is three years. The affairs of the Pastorate are governed by an elected pastorate Committee, which shall in conjunction with the Presbyter have general oversight of the Pastorate and of its religious activities. The extent, the manner and limitations of this oversight shall be defined by the rules laid down by the Diocesan Council. Every Diocesan Council has power to make rules and pass resolutions and take executive actions, for the general management and good governance of the Church in the Diocese, subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Church of South India. It has the duty of fostering the development of the evangelistic, pastoral, educational and other work of the Church in the Diocese. The affairs of Rayalaseema Diocese of CSI are administered under the religious leadership of the Bishop with the help of elected office bearers. The elected office bearers of the Rayalaseema Diocese comprise of VicePresident, Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Committee comprising of executive committee members. The tenure of the office bearers is 3 years and whereas, the tenure of the Bishop is till he attains superannuation i.e., 67 years. With regard to the election, appointment and consecration of the Bishop are concerned, the Constitution of the Church of South India, particularly Chapter VI thereon deals with the said aspect and the procedure is detailed under Chapter VI of the constitution of Church of South India. The complaint in the Writ Petition is that the procedure in the matter of election of the Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese is not followed in the election, selection and appointment of the 11^th respondent as the Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese, but, the same is incorrect. The Moderator vide his letter

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

dated 04.02.2020 issued mandate under Rules 2 and 5 of Chapter VI of the Constitution of the CSI for the election of formation of Bishopric panel names for appointment of the Bishop of CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese. It was also informed that the Executive Committee resolved to convene the Special Diocesan Council meeting on 21.05.2020 to elect the Bishopric panel for the office of Bishop. The minutes of the meeting were also forwarded. The Chairperson and Members of Rayalaseema Diocese vide their letter dated 15.5.2020 while enclosing a list of nominations made by the members of the Special Diocesan Council, called for objections from the Members. Even prior to that, a notice dated 22.01.2020 was issued to all the members of the CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese for convening a meeting for election of Bishopric panel names for appointment as Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. The Executive Committee met on 04.02.2020. In the meanwhile, the pandemic COVID-19 was prevalent in the Sate and due to lockdown, all services of the institutions had become stand still and there was absolutely no scope for the transportation, no permission for public gatherings and postal services were also not available for any communication. The total procedure to conduct Bishopric panel election have come to stand still and the Lay SubCommittee could not go any further in the conduct of Elections. As per the Mandate of the 7^th respondent, the L ay Sub Committee fixed the election scheduled to be held on 21.05.2020, due to the intensity levels of Covid-19 were so severe, guidelines issued by the Government of India are so stringent and to conduct Bishopric panel Election with more than 300 members of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese was highly impossible. Then, the Lay SubCommittee gave notice on 02.04.2020 postponing the Election date

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

from 21.05.2020 to 17.06.2020; even on that date also election could not be held as the pandemic restrictions continued. The Chairperson of the Lay Sub Committee addressed a letter dated 15.5.2020 to all the Members of the Special Diocesan Council, Bishopric elections, CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese enclosing a list of nominations made by the Members of the Special Diocesan Council and called for objections. It is also informed that the Executive Committee resolved to convene the Special Diocesan Council meeting on 21.05.2020 to elect the Bishopric panel for the office of the Bishop of CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese. The minutes of the meeting were also forwarded. But the petitioners had not raised any objections and accordingly the Chairperson of Lay Sub Committee through his letter dated 15.10.2020 issued notice to all the Members of Special Diocesan Council that the postponed Special meeting of the Diocesan Council for the election of panel of names for the Bishopric would be held on 3.12.2020 as per COVID-19 guidelines. The Bishopric elections were conducted with the total voters of 303, out of which 7 voters were absent and 296 votes were polled. As per the counting of votes of diocesan voters, the 11^th respondent got 161 votes and stood first in the list; whereas the 9^th respondent secured 153 votes and Rev. Benhur P.D.S.J secured 150 votes. After counting the 3^rd round ballots, Rev.Solomon.U received 155 votes and accordingly, the Chairperson announced four candidates Bishopric panel, which should be submitted to Moderator-Church of South India. The 8^th respondent through proceedings dated 05.01.2021 issued notice to be published on three consecutive Sundays starting from 10.1.2021 in all Churches of the Rayalaseema Diocese calling for the objections, if any, in respect of the validity of the election or in respect of the

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

character, conduct of teaching of any of the persons elected to the panel, should be made in writing to the General Secretary of the Synod within 21 days of the publication of notice i.e., on or before 31.1.2021 as per Chapter VI Rule 29 of the Constitution of Church of South India. Accordingly, the 7^th respondent secretariat through letter No.Ml/19/276/2021 dated 28.01.2021 sent four Candidates elected Bishopric panel for medical fitness to Dr.J.V.Peter, Director of CMC Hospital, Vellore and requested to submit medical report by 15^th February, 2021. Thereafter, the 7^th respondent Secretariat through Letter No.Ml/19/279/2021, DT: 17.02.2021 has called for a meeting of the Selection Board of the Rayalaseema Diocese on 20.02.2021 to study the profile of the candidate and to examine· and interview the candidates of the Bishopric Panel. After the interview, 7^th respondent secretariat decided and selected the candidate to be the Bishop of the Rayalaseema Diocese. Accordingly, the 7^th respondent as per Rule 31 of Chapter VI of Constitution of Church of South India, on 20^th February, 2021 selected the 11^th respondent as the Bishop of CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese as per Rule 32 of Chapter VI of CSI Constitution and issued certificate to that effect on 22.02.2021. But the petitioners 1 and 2 knowing fully well all the procedures being Diocesan members suppressed all these facts colluding with rival groups in Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese filed this petition with a mala fide intention and obtained interim order and trying to grab the diocesan properties which is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

¶59

In the counter it is further stated that due to COVID-19 pandemic, the nation went under strict lockdown and all services of the institutions have become stand still. There was absolutely no scope for the transportation, no permission for public gatherings and

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

postal services were also not available for any communication. The total procedure to conduct Bishopric elections have become stand still and the Lay Sub Committee could not go any further in the conduct of elections. Thus, the elections could not be conducted within the mandate period due to COVID-19 pandemic. Due to COVID-19 the mandate was revalidated and time was extended for completion of formation of Bishopric panel. It is a matter of common knowledge that COVID-19 pandemic has been and is an exception to the general period, including the period specified under the statute. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India extended the period of limitation. While considering SMW (C) 3/2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 20.4.2021, in exercise of the powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 directed that the period of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended until further orders. Even the Church of South India Synod has no other go except to extend the election mandate for completion of process of Bishopric election in terms of Rules 2 and 5 of Chapter VI of the constitution of Church of South India for the election of panel names for appointment of Bishop, having regard to the COVID19 pandemic situation where the proceedings initiated are totally prohibited in view of extension of limitation and the exercise involved in completion of election process. Having regard to the pandemic situation and lockdown in the entire country, election could not be completed and election mandate was extended. The sequence of events clearly demonstrates that the petitioners have now approached this Court with unclean hands. They have filed this Writ Petition with a mala fide intention by not mentioning the material facts in its

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

proper perspective. The petitioners have participated in the bishopric election process, casted their votes in favour of their contestants. By suppressing the material facts before this Court, the petitioners obtained an interim order of suspension of election certificate and thereby, the administration of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese has been withheld and hence, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition by vacating the interim order.

¶68

Having considered the above pleadings of both the parties, the points that would fall for consideration before this Court are:

¶69

(1) Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the prayer made thereunder;

¶70

(2) Whether the respondent 7 and 8 followed the procedure contemplated under the Constitution of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese under chapter VI Rule 2 to 5 in electing, selecting and appointing the 11^th respondent as Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese by giving impugned election certificate dated 22.2.2021.

¶71

POINT No.1:

¶72

For better understanding of the issue involved in this Writ Petition, it is required to state the formation and functions of the Church of South India, its synod and its functions. The Church of South India is a body formed and created by the CSITA, a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1913 and Rayalaseema Diocese is one of the dioceses out of 26 dioceses created by the Church of South India Trust Association (in short “CSITA”). The Church of South India is an autonomous church body. Each Diocese

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

have a Bishop who is the Episcopal head of the particular diocese. The election, appointment and consecration of the Bishop is concerned, the Constitution of Church of South India, 1956 particularly Chapter VI thereon deals with the said aspect. Similarly, Chapter-XI of the said constitution deals with the discipline of the church and settlement of disputes. As per Memorandum and Articles of Association of CSITA, 26 regional Dioceses are the members of the CSITA. The regional Dioceses are having its own constitution and regulations to govern the internal affairs of the Diocese and Rayalaseema Diocese have its own constitution. Each Diocese have a Diocesan council to deal with the affairs of the Diocese concerned. Each Diocese is divided into pastorates, which are the primary organized group of Christians at the local level. A pastorate committee of the Church is a combination of an elected body elected by the Members of the Church and nominees by the Bishop. The tenure of a Pastorate committee is three years. The affairs of the Pastorate are administered by an elected Pastorate Committee, which shall in conjunction with the Presbyter have general oversight of the Pastorate and of it religious activities. Every Diocesan Council has power to make rules and pass resolutions and take executive actions, subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Church of South India for the general management and good governance of the Church in the Diocese,. The CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese is administered under the religious leadership of the Bishop of the Church with the help of elected office bearers of the Diocesan Council i.e., Vice President, Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Committee comprising of executive committee members. The tenure of the office bearers is 3 years, whereas the tenure of the Bishop is till he attains

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

the age of superannuation of 67 years. The first moderator of the Synod of the Church of South India as per Chapter VI Rule 2 of the Constitution of the Church of South India will issue an election mandate which is valid for a period of six months and later the Lay Sub Committee would be formed headed by the Chairperson to conduct election for formation of four member Bishopric Panel to select Bishop of the Church of South India Rayalaseema Diocese at Kadapa. The formation of the Lay Sub Committee headed by the Chairperson was also completed within the mandate period. Even the election process was set in motion by receiving nominations but only election of four member Bishopric panel was held up due to pandemic situation. The rest of election process could not be completed, however, at the request of the majority of the members of the Diocesan Council; the election process was completed by following strict COVID-19 guidelines. The Bishopric panel election was conducted on 3.12.2020. Out of total voters of 302, only 7 voters were absent and 296 voters were present and election process was completed. As per counting of the Diocese voters, Respondent No.11 having got 161 votes stood first in the list and Respondent No.9 stood second with 153 votes and Rev.Benhar P.D.S.J secured 150 votes and they were elected in the first round votes. After counting the 3^rd round ballots, Rev.Solomon.U received 155 votes and accordingly, the Chair Person announced four member Bishopric panel which would be submitted to the Moderator, Church of South India - the 7^th respondent herein. Accordingly, the 8^th respondent vide proceedings dated 05.01.2021 issued notice to be published on three consecutive Sundays starting from 10.01.2021 in all Churches of the Rayalaseema Diocese calling for the objections, if any, in respect of

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

the validity of the election or in respect of the character, conduct or teaching of any of the persons elected to the panel, should be made in writing to the General Secretary of the Synod within 21 days of the display of the notice or before 31^st January, 2021 as per Chapter VI Rule 29 of the Constitution of Church of South India. As per the directions of the 8^th respondent, the then Assistant Secretary issued notice dated 6.1.2021 to all the Divisional Chairperson’s and the Presbyters calling for the objections on the Bishopric panel. Accordingly, the 7^th respondent Secretariat through letter dated 28.1.2021 sent four Bishopric elected panel names for medical fitness to Dr J.V.Peter, Director of CMC Hospital, Vellore and requested to submit medical report by 15.2.2021. After receipt of the medical fitness certificate, the 7^th respondent Secretariat through Letter dated 17.2.2021 called for a meeting of the Selection Board of the CSI on 20.2.2021 to study the profile of the candidates and to examine and interview the candidates of the Bishopric panel. As per Rule 32 of Chapter VI of the Constitution of Church of South India, the 7^th respondent Secretariat has to select a candidate out of the four member Bishopric panel to be Bishop of the CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese. Accordingly, the 7^th respondent had selected the 11^th respondent as the Bishop of the CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese and issued a certificate to that effect on 20.2.2021. Accordingly, the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocesan Officers met on 21.2.2021 and resolved to convene the Bishop’s Consecration as per Rule 40 of Chapter-VI of CSI Constitution on 22.2.2021 and accordingly, appointed the 11^th respondent as consecrated new Bishop of CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese. The process of election, selection and appointment of 11^th respondent as a Bishop of the Church of South

¶85

¶86

MGR, J W.P.No.14017 of 2021

¶87

India, Rayalaseema Diocese was completed as per the Constitution of the Church of South India by forming a four member Bishopric panel and finally a certificate of election of Bishop of Church of South India Rayalaseema Diocese was given to the 11^th respondent and is functioning as such. The challenge before this Court is as to the:

¶88

Revalidation of the election mandate issued on 24.9.2020 by the Moderator of Church of South India for a further period of six months to conduct the elections for formation of four member Bishopric panel; and

¶89

The consequential appointment of the 11^th respondent as the Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese.

¶90

Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Nagaraju Naguru, Counsel on record for Respondents 9 to 11 would contend that the issuance of election mandate by the Moderator of Church of South India and revalidation of the mandate by the 7^th respondent and subsequent formation of the Lay Sub Committee headed by the Chairperson for conducting elections for formation of four member Bishopric panel and conduct of elections on 3.12.2020 following strict COVID guidelines and formation of four member Bishopric panel and selection and appointment of 11^th respondent as a Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese and issuance of certificate of selection of the Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese to 11^th respondent. The whole affair could be termed as election process, if the petitioners have any dispute for which they have an effective and alternate remedy under Chapter XI B “Settlement of Disputes” in respect of Diocesan and Synod elections as set out under Rule 29 to 35 , which deals with the settlement of disputes by way of conciliation and arbitration. The

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

election, selection and appointment of the Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese is a private body affair and as per its constitution, no part of the statutory provisions were violated and suppressing several material factors, this Writ Petition is filed. No part of the election process of the Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese is public in character. No public functions are involved and discharged by the authorities in the process of election, selection and appointment of the 11^th respondent as Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. The said election and selection of the 11^th respondent as Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶95

Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 7 and 8, while reiterating the averments of the counter would contend that the election, selection and appointment of 11^th respondent as the Bishop of CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese and issuance of the certificate of selection was done strictly after following due procedure contemplated under Chapter VI Rule 2 to 5 of the Constitution of Church of South India. The Church of South India and its Synod and the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese, are private bodies governed by their own constitutions and their parent body CSITA is a firm registered under Companies Act. The election, selection and appointment of the Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese is not governed by the companies Act and provisions of Companies Act are not applicable. Hence, the election, selection and appointment of the Bishop of CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese is purely a private affair of the Respondents 7 and 8. The dispute, if any, with regard to election, selection and appointment of the Bishop

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

of the CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese in breach of the constitution of the Church of South India is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

¶100

In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court:

¶101

(1) Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath and others¹ , wherein the issue that fell for consideration before the Apex Court is that whether interference of High Court is called for in the election process commenced for election of member of Dental Council of India under the provisions of Dentist Act, 1948. The Apex Court following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of in N.P.Ponnuswami Vs. State of Maharashtra ((2001) 8 SCC 509) in view of the settled legal position, it is held at para-15 as under:

¶102

“In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with

¶103

the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election program on 27th January, 2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent no.1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent no.1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent no.1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of

1 (2016) 4 SCC 429

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without court’s order. Very often, for frivolous reasons candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election.”

¶109

(2) In R. Issac Robi Vs. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai² , wherein the petitioner/appellant filed W.P(MD).No.8852 of 2017 praying for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 not to allow the 8^th respondent from implementing notice dated nil published by the 8^th respondent in their Official Magazine “Desopakari” in May 2017 cancelling the proposed election for the office bearers to the CSI Kanyakumari Dioceses scheduled on 25, 26 & 27.05.2017 and consequently appointment the Hon’ble former Judge of the High Court as Election Officer to conduct an election for the office bearers to C.S.I. Kanyakumari diocesan as per the constitution and rules of C.S.I. Kanyakumari diocese for the term commencing from the date of assumption of office bearers with suitable directions to the 9^th respondent for sufficient police protection. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court at Madurai Bench dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the

¶110

2 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 2380

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

private party. Against which, Writ Appeal (MD).No.540 of 2017 has been filed and the same has been dismissed holding that the Diocese is a private body and not discharging any public duty. In para-15 it is held as follows:

¶115

“The diocese is a private body but not discharging any public duty.

¶116

The appointments of the staffs of the institution by the diocese and receiving funds from the government under minority aided schemes are different from the internal election dispute. In the present case the petitioner is seeking a prayer to issue Writ of Mandamus by directing election to the diocese is not at all maintainable and no such direction can be given to the private individual by invoking extraordinary power conferred to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The diocese is a private body not discharging public duty and internal disputes between two groups with regard to the administrative dispute cannot be resolved in this writ petition .”

¶117

(3) In the case of Santhosh Kumar S. and another Vs.

¶118

Church of South India, represented by its Secretary³ , after elaborately considering the various judgments of the Apex Court and High Court held that the Churches which did not perform any public duty or public function in solemnising marriage between two members of Dioceses, a writ would not lie to enforce purely private law rights, which in the case of the petitioners is solemnisation of their marriage.

¶119

3 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 3125

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

(4) In Federal Bank Ltd Vs. Sagar Thomas and others⁴ , wherein when Federal Bank employee challenged the order of his dismissal by filing Writ Petition in the High Court. Even though the Federal Bank has taken an objection stating that the Bank is a Private Bank and not a State or its agency or instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and no writ petition was maintainable against it. The learned Single Judge, however, found that the Federal Bank performs a public duty, and as such it comes under the definition of “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 and as such the writ petition was maintainable. In appeal, it is held that writ is maintainable against the Federal Bank. In the Special Leave Petitions, the Apex Court after considering various judgments on the aspect of maintainability of Writ Petition against a private body held that Bank is not discharging any public duty or public function. A private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it and no such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor puts any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Present is a case of disciplinary action being taken

4 (2003) 10 SCC 733

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

against its employee by the appellant Bank. Respondent's service with the bank stands terminated. The action of the Bank was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank. That being the position, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶129

(5) In K.K.Saksena Vs. International Commission on

¶130

Irrigation and Drainage and others⁵ , the Apex Court while dealing with the State and its instrumentalities of expression or any person or authority in Article 12 of the Constitution held that the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage is a private trust, not an authority and not State nor instrumentalities and would not come within the expression of any other person or authority. In Para-53 of the judgement it is held as under:

¶131

“In the present case, though we have held that ICID is not discharging any public duty, even otherwise, it is clear that the impugned action does not involve public law element and no “public law rights” have accrued in favour of the appellant which are infringed. The service conditions of the appellants are not governed in the same manner as was the position in Andi Mukta Sadguru.”

¶132

The decisions have more bearing on the issue raised in the present Writ Petition with regard to election, selection and appointment of Bishop of Church of South India Rayalaseema Diocese and the same is purely governed by the constitution of Church of South India,

5 (2015) 4 SCC 670

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

which is a private body not created by any statute or authority. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶138

Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments in the writ affidavit would contend that the selection and appointment of the 11^th respondent as the Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese and issuance of impugned certificate of selection by revalidating the election mandate is contrary to the provisions of Chapter VI Rule 2 to 5 of the Constitution of Church of South India is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Since the petitioners have no effective alternative remedy for challenging the same, writ jurisdiction is amenable to the petitioners. The Church of South India and Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese, Kadapa are discharging public functions by establishing educational institutions, private medical facilities and taking up welfare activities. Those functions are governed wholly by statutory provisions and hence, the Church of South India comes within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it is amenable to writ jurisdiction and he relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions:

¶139

He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Janet Jeyapaul Vs. SRM University and others⁶ , wherein the Apex Court held that the SRM University being a deemed university, all the provisions of UGC Act are made applicable to it and it is discharging public functions of providing education to the public and those functions and activities are governed by UGC Act and it is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India

6 (2015) 16 SCC 530

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

and hence, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶145

He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in ABL International Ltd., and another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., and others⁷ , wherein it is held that the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the State or its instrumentalities acts in an arbitrary manner even in the matter of contract. The Export Credit Corporation Limited comes within the meaning of provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution being an instrumentality of the State discharging the public function or duty.

¶146

He also placed reliance on the decision of the Madurai Bench of

¶147

the Madras High Court in the case of Tirunelveli Diocese Trust Association and others Vs. R. Jayakumar Thomas Jayaraj @ R. Jeyakumar Jayaraj, Writ Appeal (MD) No.878 of 2019 & Batch dated 25.02.2020. The learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.21134 of 2017, wherein the Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Judge entertained the Writ Petition while issuing writ of mandamus directed the respondent authorities to take necessary action to enable and ensure that the administrative committee appointed by the Church of South India, Synod exercising the powers as affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in 2009 (4) LW 742 (Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocese and another Vs. The Church of South India and another) vide its proceedings dated 31.5.2017 over the administrations and management of the 14^th respondent Diocese and its educational and health care institutions, having felt that the

7 (2004) 3 scc 553

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

dispute raised in the Writ Petition pertains to administration, management of educational institutions and health care institutions with the government aid, which actions are governed by the statutory provisions and dealing with public functions and that part of the action of the Church falls within the ambit of public function and public duty and that the Writ Petition is maintainable and relief was granted. In the Writ Appeal the Division Bench has upheld the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶153

In view of the above discussion and considering the submissions of learned counsel, this Court has no iota of doubt in holding that the issue raised in this Writ Petition with regard to revalidation of election mandate and conduct of elections and selection and appointment of the 11^th respondent as the Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese is purely an election dispute between the members of the private bodies/committees and not governed by any statutory provisions and mere breach of constitution of the private bodies cannot said to be arose in the discharge of public functions and its actions are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

¶154

POINT NO.2:

¶155

The Church of South India is a religious organization formed on 27.9.1947 as a result of the union of various churches of different denominations such as Anglican, Methodist, Protestants and other denominations. The Church of South India is governed by its own constitution known as Constitution of Church of South India. The activities of the Church of South India are spread over the entire South India, comprising of Tamilnadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

Pradesh and Telangana and also Jaffna (Sri Lanka). The affairs of the Church of South India are governed by the body called Synod which is the supreme governing legislative body of the Church of South India and final authority in all matters pertaining to the church. It has the power to make rules and to pass resolutions and take executive actions, as may be necessary from time to time. Every Diocese is represented in the Synod and the Synod elects its own executive committee members for every three years. They are the Moderator, Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer.

¶160

For the purpose of administrative convenience, Church of South India is divided into 26 ecclesiastical districts and each such district is known as a Diocese. Each Diocese has got different territorial area. The Church of South India Rayalaseema Diocese comprises of four geographical revenue districts, namely, Kadapa, Ananthapuram, Kurnool and Chittoor Districts. Every Diocese has a Bishop as the Head of the Church of South India in their respective Diocese. It is the Bishop of the Diocese, who is the supreme authority over the churches situated in the respective territorial area. Kadapa is the headquarters of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. Every Diocese has its own constitution and regulations subject to the constitution of the Church of South India to govern the internal affairs of the Diocese. Each Diocese will have a Diocesan Council, to deal with the affairs of the Diocese concerned. Each Diocese is divided into pastorates, which are the primary organized group of Christians, at the local level. A Pastorate Committee of the Church is a combination of an elected body elected by the members of the Church and nominees by the Bishop. The tenure of a Pastorate committee is three years. The affairs of the Pastorate are governed by

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

an elected Pastorate Committee, which shall in conjunction with the Presbyter have general oversight of the Pastorate and of its religious activities. The Pastorate Committee have to work within the frame work of the rules laid down by the Diocesan Council. Every Diocesan Council has power to make rules and pass resolutions and take executive actions, for the general management and good governance of the Churches in the Diocese, subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Church of South India. It has the duty of fostering the development of the evangelistic, pastoral, educational and other work of the Church in the Diocese. The affairs of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese are administered under the religious leadership of the Bishop with the help of elected office bearers. The elected office bearers of the Diocesan Council of Rayalaseema Diocese comprises of Vice-President, Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Committee comprising of executive committee members. The tenure of the office bearers is three years and whereas, the tenure of the Bishop is till he attains the age of superannuation i.e., 67 years. The election, appointment and consecration of the Bishop are governed by the Constitution of the Church of South India, 1956, particularly Chapter VI thereon, deals with the subject and the procedure is detailed under Chapter VI of the constitution of Church of South India. The 7^th respondent as per Rule 2 of Chapter VI of the constitution of the Church of South India issued a mandate on 04.01.2020 enabling the 9^th respondent to summon a meeting of the executive council by the Diocesan Council to elect a Lay Sub Committee for the purpose of conducting elections for formation of four member Bishopric panel for appointment of a Bishop for the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. In

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

pursuance of the same, a five Member Lay Sub Committee was constituted by Respondent No.9 on 04.02.2020 under the Chairpersonship of Dr Wesly. The Mandate is valid only for a period of six months from the date of issuance of Mandate. The Diocesan Executive Committee of Rayalaseema Diocese through letter dated 04.01.2020 issued mandate under Rules 2 and 5 of Chapter VI of the Constitution of the Church of South India for election of a four member Bishopric panel for appointment of a Bishop and informed the Executive Committee. The Committee had resolved to convene the Special Diocesan Council meeting on 21.05.2020 to elect the four member Bishopric panel. The Chairperson of Lay Sub Committee, Bishopric Election vide letter dated 15.5.2020 enclosed a list of nominations for the Bishopric panel Elections in Rayalaseema Diocese and called for objections from the members. As per the election mandate of the 7^th respondent, the Lay Sub Committee finalised the election scheduled to be held on 21.5.2020, but in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and guidelines issued by the Government of India are so stringent, conduct of Bishopric panel election with more than 300 members of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese was highly impossible. The Chairperson of Lay Sub Committee communicated its members on 02.04.2020 informing about postponement of election date from 21.05.2020 to 17.06.2020. In view of continuation of pandemic situation, the Chairperson of Lay Sub Committee addressed a letter to the Moderator on 30.6.2020 bringing to his notice the circumstances and time frame of mandate and requested to extend the mandate to carry out the Bishopric election of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. The 7^th respondent after receiving the request of Lay Sub Committee and

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

appeals and representations received from 215 Diocesan Council Members, in consultation with the officers of Synod gave its ruling dated 24.9.2020 extending time frame in the mandate for six months in exercise of powers as Moderator as per Rule 2 of Chapter VI of Church of South India Constitution. The Chairperson of Lay Sub Committee informed that in view of strict COVID-19 guidelines and to conduct elections as contemplated, felt it appropriate to get some exemption for such restriction so that the election process could be completed. Accordingly, the Chairperson of Lay Sub Committee addressed a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for the State of Andhra Pradesh seeking special permission to hold a meeting for appointment of a Bishop on 02.07.2020. Mere representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister to relax the restriction to conduct elections does not mean that the Government has control over the election of a Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. The Government have no control or authority, much less, overseeing the activities of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese and control the post of Bishop. The Moderator of Church of South India vide letter dated 24.9.2020 having regard to the non participation and restriction on account of COVID-19 and also in view of the prevailing pandemic situation beyond the control of anyone and having regard to the fact that keeping all the constitutional requirements, the elections have to be completed within the time frame and the Moderator deems it expedient that the time frame for the mandate set for election of four member Bishopric panel for selection of Bishop of the Rayalaseema Diocese shall stand extended by six months i.e., till 03.01.2021 in exercise of the powers of Moderator on a constructive interpretation of Rule 2 of Chapter VI of

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

Constitution of Church of South India. The ruling of Moderator has been taken into consideration as set out above and the same shall not be taken as a precedent in future. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India extended the period of limitation. While considering SMW (C) 3/2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 20.4.2021, in exercise of the powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 directed that the period of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended until further orders. The election was held on 3.10.2020 to elect the four Member Bishopric panel by the Special Diocesan Council of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese. The Bishopric four member panel has been declared elected on 03.12.2020 by the Diocesan Council. Thereafter, the 8^th respondent vide letter dated 05.01.2021 resolved to issue a notice for publication of the names of the persons elected to the panel for selection of a Bishop of the CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese under Chapter VI Rule 28 of the Constitution of Church of South India. The notices were published on three consecutive Sundays starting from 10.1.2021 in all the Churches of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese and called for objections if any in respect of validity of the election or in respect of the character, conduct or teaching of any of the persons elected to the Bishopric panel, should be made in writing to the General Secretary of the Synod within 21 days from the date of publication of the notice. Thereafter, the elected panel of four member Bishopric of the Rayalaseema Diocese was sent to CMC Hospital, Vellore for medical examination to find out the physical fitness of the Bishopric elected panel members to perform the duties of Bishop of the Diocese by two medical persons

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

chosen from CMC Hospital, Vellore. All the four members elected to the Bishopric panel were found to be medically fit to discharge the duties of Bishop of the Diocese. Thereafter, a meeting of the Selection Board was held on 20.2.2021 at Church of South India, Synod Centre, Chennai and interviewed the four Presbyters who are elected members of the Bishopric panel as per Rule 31 of Chapter VI of the Constitution of the Church of South India and unanimously agreed to select the 11^th respondent as the Bishop of CSI, Rayalaseema Diocese. Accordingly, proceedings were drawn and the appointment of the 11^th respondent was confirmed by the members of the Executive Committee of the Synod, Church of South India as per Chapter VI Rule 32 of the constitution of the Church of South India. The majority members of the Synod Executive Committee expressed their willingness to convene the meeting of the officers of Diocese and in the meeting it was resolved on 21.2.2021 as follows:

¶181

To convene the Bishop’s consecration at CSI Central Church, Kadapa on 22.2.2021;

¶182

To organize the installation of the new Bishop immediately followed by the consecration of the Bishop;

¶183

Any matters connected to the consecration of the new Bishop shall be decided by the officers of the Diocese.

¶184

Thereafter, a certificate of selection and appointment of 11^th respondent as Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseems Diocese was issued on 22.2.2021 and he started discharging the functions as such.

¶185

Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that once the Moderator of the Church of South India

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

issued election mandate on 04.01.2020 under Rule 2 of Chapter VI of the constitution of Church of South India, it is valid for a period of six months only and was expired on 03.07.2020. Later, the Special Committee which was elected in pursuance of the mandate of 04.01.2020 becomes inoperative and the 7^th respondent is under obligation to issue fresh mandate for summoning for formation of Bishopric panel consisting of four members for appointment of Bishop of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese from among the empanelled four members of the Bishopric panel. But the 7^th respondent on 24.9.2020 issued a mandate revalidating the earlier mandate which was issued on 04.01.2020 for which he is not empowered to do so which is quite contrary to the constitution of the Church of South India have no merit consideration, in view of the pandemic situation in the mid way of election process was stopped and the major part of the election process was completed by accepting nominations for forming the Bishopric panel with four members. On consideration of the representations of the majority members of the Special Diocesan Council and recommended by the Chairperson of the Lay Sub Committee, the Moderator of Church of South India having regard to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic which was prevalent beyond the control of anyone and having regard to the fact that the election process for formation of Bishopric panel was in midway had revalidated the mandate. The 11^th respondent was elected, selected and appointed as a Bishop of Rayalaseema Diocese. Thereafter, the election process was completed as per the provisions of the constitution of the Church of South India. The ruling of Moderator has been made after taking into consideration that in exceptional circumstances as set out above and the same shall not be

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021

construed as a precedent in future. In the absence of plea of any prejudice to the petitioners on revalidation of the election mandate and subsequent conclusion of the elections and appointment of the 11^th respondent as Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese could not be said to be illegal and arbitrary. Each Diocese have a Diocese Council to deal with the affairs of the Diocese concerned and every Diocese have a Bishop as the Head of the Church of South India in their respective Diocese. No Diocese shall remain without Bishop. The important functions of Bishop are not only for proper administration of the Church but also being Chairperson of the Church Board, Educational Board, Economic and Welfare Board, Hostel Board and in fostering the development of the evangelistic, pastoral, educational and other work of the Church in the Diocese and in addition to the above distribution of funds, preparation of budget, planning for the next term Diocese and he is Episcopal head of the Church of Diocese. By accepting the submission of Sri Dammalapati Srinivas and Sri J. Prabhakar Rao, the process of election and selection and appointment of the 11^th respondent as Bishop of Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the constitution of the Church of South India. Sri Dammalapati Srinivas contend that the petitioners have not pleaded and argued anything about their active participation in the election process and conduct of the elections and consequent installation and issuance of the certificate as per the constitution of Chapter XI of the Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese, suppressing the said facts, the petitioners approached this Court with unclean hands and obtained interim suspension and thereby, throwing the administration of the

¶194

¶195

MGR, J W.P.No.14017 of 2021

¶196

Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese into pell-mell without Bishop at the helm of affairs of the Church to discharge its functions.

¶197

In view of the above discussion, this Court found that the election, selection and appointment of the 11^th respondent is in accordance with the constitution of the Church of South India and there is no legal infirmity in it. Accordingly, the Point No.2 is answered. The Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) payable by the petitioners to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association at Amaravati within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶198

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶199

___________________ M. GANGA RAO, J

Date: .12.2021 CSR

MGR, J

W.P.No.14017 of 2021