The right to participate in an election is an elementary right available to the members of an organisation: Karnataka High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA RT. REV PRASANNA KUMAR SAMUEL SON OF LATE R.K.SAMUEL AGED 65 YEARS BISHOP KARNATAKA CENTRAL DIOCESE No.20 3RD CROSS CSI COMPOUND BANGALORE 560 027. REV J PAUL DHANASEGARAN SECRETARY KARNATAKA CENTRAL DIOCESAN COUNCIL No.20 3RD CROSS CSI COMPOUND BANGALORE 560 027. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE KARNATAKA CENTRAL DIOCESE No.20 3RD CROSS CSI COMPOUND BANGALORE 560 027. THE KARNATAKA CENTRAL DIOCESE No.20 3RD CROSS CSI COMPOUND BANGALORE 560 027. REP. BY REV J PAUL DHANASEGARAN. BY SRI. B.M.ARUN ADV.) 1. MR. FRANKLYN JAMES … APPELLANTS 2 SON OF D.JAMES ABRAHAM AGED 68 YEARS No.215 BDS GARDEN GEDDALAHALLI KOTHANUR P.O. BANGALORE 560 077. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA No.5 WHITES ROAD ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI 600 014 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. … RESPONDENTS BY MISS SANJANA RAO ADV.) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 08.10.2021 O.S.No.26083 2021 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE MAYOHALL THERE ALLOWING I.A.Nos.1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING By the impugned order the Trial Court has restrained the defendants appellants herein from giving effect to the resolution ‘CX.383 2018 21: Synod Matter Enquiry report’ dated 19.07.2021 pending disposal of the suit. Trial Court has defendants appellants from preventing the plaintiff from 3 exercising his vote or from contesting any of the Elections of the area councils elections at the Triennial councils and or any other elections conducted by or with respect to the 4th and 5th defendants except in respect of the election which prohibits him from contesting in the election under Chapter VII Rule 12(E) of the Constitution of 5th defendant pending disposal of the suit. Thus by the interim order all that has been done by the Trial Court is to permit the plaintiff to exercise his vote and from contesting the elections. This interim order in my view does not prejudice the appellants in any manner. If the plaintiff is permitted to participate in the electoral process no harm or prejudice would be caused to the appellants since the right to participate in an election is an elementary right available to a member of an organization governed by its rules. Sri B.M.Arun learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Trial Court has not made it clear as to whether the Returning Officer could reject the application if the plaintiff was otherwise ineligible. 4 Miss Sanjana Rao learned counsel appearing for the respondent plaintiff submits that it is always open for the Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper if as a matter of fact there is any ineligibility surrounding the candidature of the plaintiff. She also submits that the plaintiff does not suffer from any disqualification and is entitled to contest the election. In view of the fact that both the parties are in agreement that the nomination paper of the plaintiff can be considered in accordance with the Constitution of the Church of South India 2016 and in accordance with law the interim order granted by the Trial Court does not in any way prejudices either of them. I therefore find no reason to entertain this appeal and the appeal is rejected subject however to the observation made above. Sd JUDGE 

Summary: No harm or prejudice would be caused to the appellants if the plaintiff was permitted to participate in the electoral process. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda in the matter of Rt. Rev Prasanna Kumar Samuel and ors Vs. Mr. Franklin  James [M.F.A. No. 5148/2021(CPC)].  The facts of the case were associated with a Synod-Matter Enquiry report pending disposal of the suit dated 19.07.2021 wherein the Trial Court had restrained the defendants/appellants from giving effect to the resolution. Furthermore, the appellants were restrained by the Trial Court from preventing the plaintiff to exercise votes in any of the elections conducted by the 4th and 5th defendants other than the elections that prohibit to contest under Chapter VII Rule 12(E) of the Constitution. Thereby, the Trial Court in the interim order permitted the plaintiff to cast vote and contest in elections.  The counsel, Sri B.M Arun argued that it was not made clear by the Trial Court if the Returning Officer could reject the application if the plaintiff was ineligible. While, the counsel, Miss Sanjana Rao representing the respondents contended that Returning Officer was always open to reject the nomination paper. Moreover, it was also submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to participate in the election as they didn’t suffer any disqualification.  The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka considering all the submissions ruled out that “ In view of the fact that both the parties are in agreement that the nomination paper of the plaintiff can be considered in accordance with the Constitution of the Church of South India, 2016 and in accordance with the law, the interim order granted by the Trial Court does not, in any way, prejudices either of them. I, therefore, find no reason to entertain this appeal and the appeal is rejected subject, however, to the observation made above.”