Madras High Court
Rev.Charles Williams vs The Moderator on 21 November, 2025
C.M.A.No.3534 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.No.3534 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.29339 of 2025
Rev.Charles Williams,
Son of William Duraisamy,
Who is working as a Presbyter,
At Annur Rural Pastorate,
Annur, Coimbatore,
Within the jurisdiction of
CSI Coimbatore Diocese ... Appellant / Petitioner / Plaintiff
vs.
1.The Moderator,
The Church of South India, Synod, CSI Centre,
No.5, Whites Road,
Post Box No.688,
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.
2.The Church of South India,
Synod, represented by its
General Secretary, CSI Centre, No.5,
Whites Road,
Post Box No.688,
Royapettah, Chennai- 600 014.
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
C.M.A.No.3534 of 2025
3.The CSI Diocese of Coimbatore,
Represented by the Bishop,
CSI Dioceses Office No.256,
Coimbatore- 641 018.
4.The Sub Lay Committee,
Represented by its Chairman,
CSI Diocese Office, No.256,
Race Course,
Coimbatore - 641 018. … Respondents / Respondents
/ Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the fair and decretal order in
I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.1342 of 2025 dated 18.11.2025, on the file of
the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.Sunny Sheen Akkara
for Mrs.V.Srimathi
For Respondents : Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Adrian D.Rozario [R1 & R2]
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the fair
and Decretal Order made in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.1342 of 2025 on
the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore dated 18.11.2025 by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
the plaintiff herein.
2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and
ranking before the trial Court.
3. Details of the affidavit is stated in brief:
Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. Suit is laid for the relief as given
hereunder:
(i) To declare the appointment of Lay sub Committee issued by the
rd rd
3 defendant for conducting the Bishopric elections to the 3
defendant herein dated 05.09.2025 as illegal and it is null and void
and it cannot be legally valid and binding upon the plaintiff.
(ii) By passing Order of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants 3 and 4 from conducting any elections to the panel of
Bishopric of CSI, Coimbatore Diocese on 22.11.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
3.1. The Church of South India [hereinafter mentioned as CSI] is an
autonomous Church constituted by the Union of Churches of South India
in the year 1947. The Administration and the governance of the CSI is
governed by the constitution of CSI. Each Diocese has its own constitution
and the said constitution shall be in conformity with the constitution of CSI,
nd rd
(i.e.,) 2 defendant. Petitioner is a Presbyter in the 3 defendant Diocese.
3.2. Election is held for each and every position within the Diocese
and election process is held for the purpose of selecting candidates to
become members of the Diocese Council, the Executive Committee,
Bishops, etc. Violation of the constitutional process of the CSI Synod, and
principles of natural justice undermines the sanctity of electoral
rd
procedures. On 05.09.2025, the 3 defendant issued a letter to all the
Presbyters of the Coimbatore Diocese. As per the said letter, it is learnt
st
that the 1 defendant has forwarded a letter on 21.08.2025 with regard to
st
mandate issued by the 1 defendant for the purpose of conducting
Bishopric elections. For the election of the Bishop, democratic process of
election has to be followed. As per the said letter, Executive Committee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
meeting was allegedly held on 26.08.2025 and members were appointed
th
to the Sub Lay Committee (4 defendant) as per CSI Constitution. Copy of
st
the mandate of the 1 defendant dated 21.08.2025 was not issued to the
members of the diocese.
st
3.3. As per Clause 2 of Chapter VI, the 1 defendant must send a
mandate to the Secretary to summon a meeting of the Diocesan Council
to arrange for election of panel of names of the Bishopric atleast six
months prior to the retirement of the sitting Bishop. Chapter VI Rule 5 says
that “the moderate shall send his mandate only after ascertaining existing
Diocesan Council has atleast six months from the date of receipt of the
mandate before its term expires. In case the existing council has only less
than six months before the expiry of its term, he shall send his mandate
only after the succeeding Diocesan Council has been constituted and
such succeeding Diocesan Council can elect the panel.”
3.4. As per Clause 5 of Chapter VI it stipulates that the Secretary
must summon a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Diocesan
Council who is donned with the responsibility of selecting committee of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
members. 4th respondent shall act as a Chairperson of the special
meeting of the Diocesan Council which shall be convened for the purpose
of conducting the election of the Bishop.
3.5. The 1st defendant has failed while carrying his duty under
Chapter VI of CSI constitution. The 1st defendant has failed to take
cognizance of the fact that the Diocesan Council presently occupied the
Chair has less than six months left within the term and the failure of which
is catastrophic and its consequences cannot be condoned.
3.6. As per Clause 12 A in Chapter VIII of CSI constitution, every
Diocesan Council is given a term of three years to conduct their duties. If
there is any delay in convening the Council, such delay cannot prolong the
life of the Council for more than three years.
3.7. The present Diocesan Council’s term expires in the month of
November 2025. The mandate was only issued in the month of August
2025 and the Diocesan Council was only left with three months for their
term. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the mandate issued by the 1 st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
defendant which is contrary to the constitution of CSI and thus illegal and
improper.
3.8. On 12.09.2025, the 4th defendant had issued a letter to all the
members of the Diocese, informing them that after the special meeting of
the CSI, Coimbatore, Diocesan Council’s Executive Committee on
26.08.2025 for appointing Lay Sub Committee of South India has
appointed five members. It was decided for electing the names for the
panel for the Bishop election would take place on 22.11.2025. The notice
dated 12.09.2025 in this regard cannot be sustained.
3.9. The defendants have failed to follow the rules and regulations
along with by-laws of Constitution of CSI. This application is filed to
restrain the 4th defendant from electing a panel of Bishops as required
under the mandate issued by the 1st respondent to respondents No.3 and
4 are to be restrained from conducting the election to the panel of
Bishopric of CSI of Coimbatore Diocese on 22.11.2025 or any other date
until disposal of the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
3.10. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, though it was
undertaken to file vakalat, for non filing of the same, the respondents 1
and 2 have been set ex-parte before the trial Court.
4. Per contra, the respondents 3 and 4 would inter-alia contend that
the Bishop is the head of the Diocese. There is no constitutional violation
or non following of electoral process with regard to current Bishopric
election process. The details given in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the
affidavit are denied as false. The 4th respondent Lay Sub Committee has
been validly constituted pursuant to the CSI Coimbatore Diocese
Executive Committee resolution dated 26.08.2025 as per the provisions of
the CSI constitution found in Chapter VI.
4.1. It is incorrect to state that current Council ought to have been
convened in the month of October 2022. As per past practice in the CSI
Diocesan Council, the Council election is normally held in the month of
November only. Due to unforeseen events, the Council belatedly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
convened in July 2023. The Council’s full term starts from July 2023 and
ends in July 2026 only.
4.2. The mandate, Executive Committee’s resolution and election
notification issued by the Lay Sub Committee are in order and do not
suffer from any illegality or infirmities. The petitioner is a Presbyter in a
Church, who is the employee of the CSI Coimbatore Diocese. The 3rd
respondent is the Employer. The petitioner being a permanent employee
has not approached the Court for any grievance for his individual
grievances. He is a voter in the electoral college of the current Bishopric
election. He is not a contestant in the ensuing Bishopric election.
5. Heard Mr.Sunny Sheen Akkara, learned counsel for the
petitioner/plaintiff and the learned Senior Counsel Mr.E.Prakash for all the
respondents/defendants.
6. The plaintiff has filed this application under Order 39 Rules 1 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
2r/w. Section 151 of CPC to pass an order of interim injunction restraining
the defendants 3 and 4 from conducting any election to the panel of
Bishopric of CSI Coimbatore Diocese on 22.11.2025 or any other date
until the disposal of the suit.
7. Case of the petitioner is that he is the Presbyter in the 3 rd
defendant Diocese. 3rd defendant had issued a letter dated 05.09.2025 to
all the Presbyters of the Coimbatore Diocese. As per the said letter an
Executive Committee meeting was held on 26.08.2025 and members
were appointed to the Sub Lay Committee (4th defendant) as per CSI
constitution.
8. The 4th defendant has been given the responsibility to conduct a
special session to Diocese Council for the purpose of electing a panel for
Bishopric election.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
9. Prior to the appointment of the Bishop through the process of
election, the Executive Committee is tasked with the responsibilities of
making a panel of eligible candidate from whom the members of the
Diocese would be allowed to elect the Bishop that would eventually
represent the Diocese.
10. The main objection of the petitioner is that as per Clause 2 of
Chapter VI of CSI constitution, the 1st defendant must send mandate to
the Secretary to summon a meeting of Diocesan Council to arrange for the
election of panel of names of the Bishopric atleast six months prior to the
retirement of the sitting Bishop.
11. Chapter VI Rule 5 enumerates that “The moderate shall send
his mandate only after ascertaining that the existing Diocesan Council has
at least six months from the date of receipt of the mandate before its term
expires. In case the existing council has only less than six months before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
the expiry of its term, he shall send his mandate only after the succeeding
Diocesan Council has been constituted, and such succeeding Diocese
Council shall elect the panel (1999)".
12. Then upon receiving the mandate, the Secretary must summon
a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council and the
fourth defendant shall act as the Chairpersons of the Special meeting of
the diocesan council which shall be convened for the purposes of
conducting the election of the Bishop.
13. From a careful reading of the above said Clauses, it indicates
that the 1st respondent can send his mandate after ascertaining whether
the existing Diocesan Council has atleast six months left in their term or
triennium. If the Diocesan Council has less than six months left in their
term, the 1st defendant shall only send his mandate after the new
Diocesan Council has been constituted and such Diocesan Council shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
be responsible for electing the panel for Bishopric elections. Therefore, the
petitioner’s main objection is that the above said Clause was not followed
in letter and spirit.
14. According to the petitioner, the present Diocesan Council has
less than six months left within the term.
Rule -12 A of Chapter VIII is relevant and it is extracted hereunder:
“A) The term of the Diocesan Council shall be
three years. The Diocesan Constitution shall also
state the month in which the term of the Council would
normally begin, so that elections to the Diocesan
Councils from the pastorates and other constituencies
can be arranged accordingly. If for any reason the
convening of the Council after fresh elections is
delayed, such delay shall not prolong the life of the
Council beyond the time stipulated in the constitution,
subject to Clause (c) under this rule. The new Council
shall function only for the remainder of the term.
C) The Council shall meet once in every
THREE years for its ordinary meeting. Council shall
meet at least once in between the ordinary meetings
to discuss the life and work of the Diocese. (2015)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
D) At least six months before the expiry of the
term of the Council, the Executive Committee shall set
in motion the arrangements for electing a new
Council. In case the new Council cannot be convened
within 3 months from the expiry of the term of the old
Council, the Synod shall take steps for the proper
administration of the Diocese. (2015)”
15. Though a mention is made that if for any reason, convening of
the Council after fresh election is held such delay shall not prolong the life
of the Council beyond the time stipulated in Clause-C under this rule. A
deep perusal of above said Clause would ultimately explicate that the term
of the Diocesan Council shall be three years. The petitioner’s contention is
that the term of Diocesan Council expires in October 2025 and therefore,
issuance of impugned letter is not in accordance with constitution of the
CSI.
16. As per the letter of the Bishop of Coimbatore dated 27.07.2023,
the Diocesan Council members were elected in the last week of July 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
The impugned letter is extracted hereunder:
“Dear Reverends,
Sub: CSI Coimbatore Diocese Mandate for the Bishopric
Election – Reg.
Ref: Letter from the Moderator, CSI dt. 21.08.2025
Greetings to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
As per the Constitution of Church of South India, the
Moderator has sent the Mandate to the Diocesan Secretary
to convene the Executive Committee of the Diocese and to
arrange for the election of a panel for the office of the
Bishopric of CSI Coimbatore Diocese.
Accordingly, the Executive Committee which met on
26.08.2025 appointed the following members as Lay-Sub
Committee as per rules 5 of Chapter VI of the Constitution of
Church of South India.
1. Mr.D.S. Amirtham - Chairperson
2. Mr.N.Arivalagan - Member
3. Mr.Samuel David Mangaladoss - Member
4. Adv.V.Stanly Rajasingh - Member
5. Adv.T.E.Udayakumar - Member
Hereafter this Lay Sub-Committee will be fully and
completely responsible to conduct the Special session of the
Diocesan Council for electing a Panel for the Bishopric and
shall have full powers to act on behalf of the Executive
Committee in respect of matters connected with the election.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
Any correspondence regarding the election shall be
addressed to
Mr.D.S. Amirtham
Chairperson
Election-Bishopric-2025, CSI Coimbatore Diocese
CSI Diocesan Office, 256, Race Course,
Coimbatore - 641018
Kindly make announcement in the Divine Worship services
and pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to give us a
th
suitable person as the 7 Bishop of our Diocese
With many Good wishes and Prayers
Sd:/- Rt.Rev.Timothy Ravinder
Bishop
CC: 1. The Moderator & Officers of CSI Synod
2. The Office Bearers, CSI Coimbatore Diocese
3. The Chairperson, Lay-Sub Committee”
17. The mandate has been issued by the Secretary of CSI
Coimbatore Diocese on 21.08.2025. Though the petitioner has mentioned
about the same, the said mandate being a prime document was not filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
18. As per the letter dated 27.07.2023 of the Bishop of Coimbatore,
it is made clear that the Office Bearers of the Diocese was elected during
third week of July 2023 as mentioned supra. As per Clause-12 A Chapter
VIII of CSI constitution, the term of the said Council is three years namely
from July 2023 to July 2026. It is pertinent to note that in Clause 12 D of
Chapter VIII, the word atleast six months would indicate the fact that the
relevant body has to initiate its work with regard to the election and its
directory nature.
19. Petitioner is a Presbyter in the Church. Admittedly he is an
employee of 3rd respondent. It is learnt that all the arrangements have
been made for the ensuing Bishopric election which is scheduled on
tomorrow (22.11.2025). It is learnt that there are 258 voting members. The
petitioner is also one of the Voter.
20. On 21.08.2025, the mandate was issued by the Secretary of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
CSI, Coimbatore Diocese, under Rules 2 and 5 of Chapter VI of
constitution of CSI for the election of panel of names for the appointment
of Bishop. Pursuant to the same, on 05.09.2025, the 3rd defendant has
issued a letter and Executive Committee meeting was held on 26.08.2025
and the members were appointed to the Sub Lay Committee. Thereafter,
on 12.09.2025, a notice for the special meeting of the Diocesan Council
was sent to all the members stating that election for the panel of names
for the Bishopric of CSI Coimbatore Diocese is slated to be held on
22.11.2025. The last date for filing nomination was fixed as 06.09.2025.
Thereafter it appears that after permitting withdrawals and in consideration
of the objections, the list is published in the notice Board. Viewed in all
angle especially, as per the rules of CSI constitution, it is done in order.
21. The prime document in this regard is the mandate issued on
21.08.2025. If really the grievance is genuine, the petitioner should have
rushed to the Court within few days from 21.08.2025. When the election is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
scheduled on 22.11.2025 (tomorrow) suit was only filed on 13.11.2025 and
the impugned application was filed along with the suit and after receiving
the objections from the respondents, the trial Court has passed the Order
on 18.11.2025. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner lacks bonafides.
22. The important conditions governing the grant of interim
injunction are the petitioner shall establish prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable injury. Injunction is a relief founded in equity.
Based on the aforestated discussions, this Court is of the considered view
that the petitioner is a Presbyter who is a Voter has not established the
prima facie case. No doubt, as mentioned supra, the balance of
convenience is in favour of the defendants and if the election which is
scheduled to be conducted on tomorrow (22.11.2025) is ordered to be
cancelled, it would cause irreparable injury to the respondents. By
discussing all the details thoroughly, the trial Court has dismissed the
interim application in a right perspective. This Court does not find any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
infirmity or perversity in the findings of the trial Court. This Court also does
not find any good reason to upset the findings of the learned trial Court.
23. In view of the aforestated narrative, this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal stands dismissed. The Fair and Decretal Order dated 18.11.2025
passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.1342 of 2025 by the trial Court
stands confirmed. It is made clear that the election as scheduled on
22.11.2025 to be proceed with. There is no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
ssn
Note: Issue Order Copy on 28.11.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
To:
1. The I Additional District Judge,
Coimbatore.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
R.KALAIMATHI, J.,
ssn
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 08:34:30 pm )
