18 July 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In D. Bright Joseph v/s Zeam Knock & Others an application was filed in the Madras High Court seeking a directive for the appointed Election Officer to adopt a secret ballot system during the Bishop Council meeting—the initial stage of the election for the Moderator of the Church of South India (CSI).

The background to this application is a previous order by the Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court, which had set aside an earlier election for the Moderator for the 2023-2026 tenure due to procedural flaws and had appointed an Election Officer. The current application was filed amidst allegations that the Bishop Council's nominations were influenced, with claims of threats from other office bearers, though these claims were not supported by direct statements from the Bishops.

The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 5 to 8 strongly opposed the application, arguing that the CSI Constitution and bye-laws stipulate that the Bishop Council meeting is for nomination by consensus or a 2/3rd majority. Only if the nominated Bishop fails to secure a majority in the subsequent Synod election, can the Bishop Council then propose two names by secret ballot. Imposing a secret ballot at the initial nomination stage would contradict the established rules, which have been upheld by the Division Bench of the Court.

However, the learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and the applicant contended that the previous election was flawed precisely because of an erroneous nomination process by the Bishop Council.

Given the urgency as the election was scheduled for July 21, 2025, and to resolve ongoing disputes, the Court issued specific directions to the Election Officer, aiming to balance the existing CSI Constitution and bye-laws with the need for a fair and orderly election:

• The Election Officer is to first arrange the Bishop Council meeting for nominating a candidate for the Moderator's office.
• A list of Bishops will be circulated, and each Bishop will indicate their preference for nomination.
• The Election Officer will verify nominations. If there is a unanimous nomination or a 2/3rd majority, that candidate will be announced, and the election will proceed in the Synod by ballot. If neither unanimity nor a 2/3rd majority is achieved, the Election Officer will reconvene the Bishop Council for the nomination of two candidates through a secret ballot.
• Only Bishops are permitted to attend the Bishop Council meeting.

Additionally, the Court addressed concerns raised by the Election Officer regarding harassment during past election processes and the need for support. The Court directed:

• The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, to ensure sufficient police protection at the election venue on July 21, 2025, with an Assistant Commissioner overseeing law and order.
• The first defendant (CSI) to bear the professional fees for litigations in which the Election Officer engaged advocates.
• The Election Officer is empowered to take all necessary and suitable actions for the orderly conduct of the Moderator election.

Finally, the Court clarified that this order is issued based on the unique and urgent circumstances of this case and shall not be considered a precedent for future elections. The application was disposed of without an order as to costs.