Major J. Victor vs Rt. Rev. M. Azariah and The Diocese of Madras

Govardhan, J.—The applicant in his affidavit contends briefly as follows: The applicant has filed the suit for declaration that the order of the

first defendant dated 10-6-1995 ex-communicating the plaintiff from the primary membership of the Church of South India, Madras Diocese as

violative of the principles of natural justice, vindictive, malafide and void and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants

and their men and their Institutions from enforcing the order dated 10-6-1995 in any way and for compensation. The applicant is a member of the

Church of South India right from its inception. He has been a duly elected member of the Pastorate Committee of the Wesley English Pastorate,

which is responsible for the administration of the pastorate, for 8 terms of 2 years each. He had also been deputed to represent the Pastorate in

several meetings of the Madras Diocesan Council, which meets biennially. The applicant is a well known Christian leader in the City of Madras.

The first respondent has been indulging in various activities which are contrary to the Constitution of the Pastorates, Diocese and the Church of

South India. He has been interfering with the administration of the Wesley English Pastorate during the past few years. The applicant and others

were forced to file several suits against the first respondent. The activities of the respondents in particular, the first respondent, were against the

interests of the worshippers of the Wesley English Pastorate and there was a constant threat of the resolution of the duly elected Pastorate Council

by the first respondent. The applicant and other worshippers of the Wesley English Pastorate formed the Wesley English Pastorate Members and

worshippers Trust to ensure that the respondents did not transgress the constitution of the pastorate. The applicant and other prominent Christian

leaders from other parts of the Diocese as well as from other Dioceses in the Church of South India formed the ""People''s Movement Towards the

Reformation of the CS.L"". The applicant was elected as the Secretary of this Organisation. The first respondent had issued a notice calling upon

the applicant as to why he should not be ex-communicated as per Article 60(a) of the Constitution of the Madras Diocesan Council, on the charge

that he had attended the Confirmation Service conducted by the Anglican Bishop Stephen Vattaparaat Cuddalore on 9-4-1995 as Chief Guest, in

a school Auditorium. The applicant gave a suitable reply. The first respondent has passed orders on 10-6-1995 ex-communicating the applicant

from the primary membership of the Church of South India with immediate effect. The applicant gave a representation for revocation of the said

order. There is no reply. The first respondent has passed the order against the applicant out of vindictive attitude. The order passed by the first

respondent is an illegal one which has put the applicant to tremendous mental agony and hardship. Hence the suit and the application.

The second respondent has filed a counter contending briefly as follows: The allegations against the first respondent are not true. He never

interfered with the administration of the Church of South India. Egmore Wesley English Pastorate. He never attempted to remove the plaintiff from

the Pastorate Committee of the Egmore Wesley English Pastorate. The first respondent cannot take any decision independently. The decisions

taken are by the Executive Committee of the Diocesan. It is not true to say that the respondents were against the worshippers of the Egmore

Wesley English Pastorate. The first respondent never tried to dissolve the same. The respondents are in no way concerned about the formation of

the ""Peoples Movement towards the Reformation of the CSI'''' No action has been taken by the first respondent against the applicant for his

involvement in this aspect. A show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff on the charge that the applicant participated as a Special guest in an

unauthorised and illegal confirmation service of 45 young persons of CSI Cuddalore Pastorate conducted by the Bishop Vattapara of Indian

Anglican Church at Cuddalore on 9-4-1995. the show cause notice was issued on the basis of the report of Enquiry Commission appointed by the

Executive Committee. The applicant has admitted that he attended the illegal confirmation service conducted by a Bishop of another faith for the

young persons of Church of South India. Madras Diocese at Cuddalore. The first respondent studied in detail, the explanations offered by the

plaintiff and then passed the said order. The claim of Stephen Vattapara as a Bishop of Indian Anglican Church is illegal. His participation in the

activities of the CSI Churches is to create a division in the Church of South India. He created a Division in the Periyar Nagar Church of CSI

Madras Diocese and a name board bearing the name ""Anglican Church of India"" was erected in a church built by the members of the CSI. Hence,

the first respondent has passed the impugned order. The applicant has submitted a representation to the first respondent as per Article 60(b) of the

Constitution of the Madras Diocesan Council. The first respondent who has studied the same, was not satisfied with the reasons given by the

applicant and therefore, confirmed his earlier order with a modification of ex-communication of the applicant for a limited period of six years. The

applicant has been given enough opportunity before passing the final order. The action against the plaintiff has been taken in the interests of the

Church in order to preserve the discipline, unity and integrity of the Church. The application is therefore liable to be dismissed.

The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaring that the order passed by the first respondent on 10-6-1995 ex-communicating him is illegal and for a

declaration that the first respondent and his men and the Institutions under their control should not implement the said order until the disposal of the

suit. According to the plaintiff the first respondent has been indulging in various activities contrary to the constitution by which the Pastorates,

Dioceses and the Church of South India are to be administered and in particular, the first respondents has been interfering with the administration

of the Wesley English Pastorate in which the applicant is the duly elected member of the Pastorate Committee. According to the applicant, in view

of the activities of the first respondent, several proceedings have to be instituted against the first respondent and out of vindictive attitude, the first

respondent has passed the impugned order against him. It is also the case of the applicant that the applicant and other members of Wesley English

Pastorate and other Pastorates have formed a movement called People''s Movement Towards the Reformation of the CSI"" to resist the first

respondent''s attitude and that is also one of the reasons for the first respondent in passing the impugned order.

The respondents resist the same by contending that the first respondent is not acting contrary to the constitution as alleged and the action taken

by the Church of South India is the action taken by the diocese and not the decisions of the first respondent and therefore, the reason given by the

applicant for this action against him is not true. It is to be noted that the plaintiff had sent a representation along with 350 responsible CSI Members

like Justice C.J.R. Paul (Retired), Dr. A.S. Thambaiah, to the Moderators and the Synod Officers alleging irregularities having been committed by

the first respondent. It is also to be noted that the applicant has filed C.S. Nos. 724/1991, 728/1991, 187/1992 and 16/1993 and the Pastorate

Committee of Egmore Wesley Church in which the applicant is a member has filed a separate suit in C. S. No. 1355/1991. All these suits are

against the first respondent on the allegation that he is acting against the Pastorates Diocese, its independence and in particular Egmore Wesley

Church. Interim Orders have also been obtained by the applicant in these proceedings. More than three Contempt Applications have been filed by

the applicant and other against the first respondent alleging that the first respondent has not obeyed the orders of the Court in the various suits filed

by the plaintiff. These antecedent events to the present dispute between the applicant on the one hand and the first respondent on the other, cannot

be dismissed as not relevant on the ground that the first respondent is not affected by any of the activities of the plaintiff. The respondent would

contend that whatever action was taken by the first resident was only in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Diocese and the first respondent

cannot be said to have taken any action against the applicant in his individual capacity cannot be given much credence since it was only under his

control, several actions have been taken against the applicant driving the applicant to file separate suits.

According to the respondents, there is no Anglican Church of India and Bishop Vattapara claiming to be a Bishop of the Anglican Church, is

only a rebel and is creating confusion and his rebel activity is causing disturbance and when he conducts a confirmation service in Cuddalore, the

applicant had participated in the same as a special invitee thereby encouraging disharmony and disorder in the Church of South India and therefore

on the report by the Committee, as contemplated under Article 60, the first respondent has taken disciplinary proceeding after giving due notice to

the applicant and has passed the impugned order and there is nothing to interfere with the same. The question whether the Bishop Vattapara is a

rebel and he is creating disharmony and division among the members of the Church of South India, need not be considered at the stage on an

enquiry in an interlocutory application. The charge against the applicant is that by participating in the Confirmation Service conducted by Bishop

Stephen Vattapara, the applicant has disturbed the peace of the Church and created dissention between the Pastorates and has caused disturbance

in the congregation. To substantiate this version, the respondent relies upon a report said to have been sent by the Presbyter Rev. Staneley Vower

of Cuddalore Pastorate to the first respondent on 16-4-1993. On the basis of this report, the first respondent is said to have appointed an Enquiry

Commission consisting of three persons to enquire into the alleged involvement of the supplicant in the dedication of Bell Tower in Ephiphany

Church and the confirmation service alleged to have been conducted by Stephen Vattapara for the children of Cuddalore CSI Pastorates. The

applicant admits having attended the confirmation service, but would contend that he visited the same as an invited of a relative and not as a special

invitee as alleged. The letter of one of the relatives of the applicant dated 4-4-1995 probabilise the version of the applicant:

As far as the appointment of the Enquiry Commission is concerned, a resolution is said to have been passed on 22-4-1995 appointing them to

enquire into the alleged involvement of the applicant in the confirmation service. But the applicant has produced copy of the extract of the Minutes

of the Diocesan Executive Committee dated 22-4-1995 regarding the matters of Cuddalore Pastorate which is as follows: ""It is resolved to

appoint a Commission consisting of Rev. Francis Rajadoss, Dr. Augustine Chellappa and Mr. A. Immanuel to find out the irregularities."" This

communication has been signed by the Secretary of Madras Dioceses Mr. Soundararaj. The resolution relied by the respondent is to the effect that

the Commission was appointed to go into the alleged involvement of the applicant in the confirmation service conducted by Vattapara. But the

resolution which has been communicated to the advocate for the applicants by the Secretary, is to the effect that the Commission is to find out the

irregularities in the Cuddalore Pastorate and it is not to enquire into the alleged involvement of the applicant. In other words, it is not a commission

of enquiry appointed by the Bishop as required under Article 16(d) Further, the three member Committee which is said to have sent a report to the

Secretary of the CSI. Madras Diocesan Council even though is specific in stating that Rev. Staneley Vower has not participated in the function

held on 9-4-1995 in which Major Victor has participated, is not one signed by the members of the Committee. Acting on this unsigned report, to

take disciplinary action against a Pastorate is not in accordance with justice and good conscience. When the report of the Enquiry Commission is

to the effect that Rev Staneley Vower has not participated in the function on 9-4-1995, it is not explained by the respondent as to how Rev.

Staneley Vower has sent a report to the Bishop to the effect that the applicant has participated in the confirmation service and he is a person who

is violating the constitution of the Madras Diocesan Council and creating dissention in the Church. The report itself is by a person who has not

attended the confirmation service and the report itself reads as if it is a prejudiced report since he has made allegations against the applicant to the

Bishop. In the report, there is no allegation that the service was disturbed by anyone. While so, there is no reason as to why the first respondent

should not accept the reply sent by the applicant to the show cause notice issued by him instead of passing the impugned order. The respondents

have not placed any rule which prohibits the Member of the Church of South India from attending any other service conducted by a Bishop

belonging to a different Diocese. Mere attendance of the applicant in the confirmation service in which the daughter of a close relative of the

applicant whose confirmation was performed has been taken as a ruse to inflict the punishment of ex-communication by the first respondent is seen

from the above facts.

The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would argue that the earlier order has been reconsidered and the period of ex-

communication has been modified and limited to a period of six years by the first respondent and before a final order is passed, the applicant has

come to Court and since there is no order excommunicating him for ever, the present suit and the present application have become infructuous and

on that ground, it is liable to be set aside. The subsequent order has been passed on a requisition by the applicant and after the filing, of the suit. If

the earlier order ex-communicating the applicant is held to be invalid, the subsequent order will also become invalid since it has been passed only

after the suit. Therefore, in view of the passing of a subsequent order by the first respondent, it cannot be stated that the plaintiff has no cause of

action for the suit since ex-communication in Religious Order and that too, of a spiritual-head, entails serious consequences both religious and civil.

It cannot be brushed aside lightly on the ground that it is only for a limited period since one of the effects of an action of ex-communication is that

the person concerned is deprived of the right of Worship which is a fundamental right under the Constitution. It is thus seen that the applicant has

placed materials which would prima facie show that on account of the antecedent events, which took place between the applicant on the one hand,

and the first respondent on the other, the first respondent has taken advantage of the applicant attending the Confirmation Service with the daughter

of one of his relatives, which has been conducted by Vattapara, to take vengeance on the a applicant and ex-communicated him without any

regard for the procedure to be adopted in taking a disciplinary action against an erring member as contemplated under Article 60 of the

Constitution of the Church of South India. The first respondent has acted in excess and violation of the powers conferred on him under Article 16

of the Constitution and therefore, the applicant is entitled to an order of injunction as prayed for. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim

injunction is granted as prayed for till the disposal of the suit.