Madras High Court
Maher Antony A vs Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church … on 15 July, 2026
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.07.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.12998 & 12999 of 2026
A.Maher Antony,
S/o.Late S.Augustine Antony,
(Former Secretary of Church Council Tamil
Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC)). ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC),
P.B.No.86, Tranquebar House, Melapudur,
Trichy-625 001,
Represented by its Secretary,
Mr.R.Thangapalam.
2.Rt.Rev.Dr.A.Christian Samraj,
President/Bishop,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC),
P.B.No.86, Tranquebar House,
Melapudur, Trichy - 625 001.
3.Mr.R.Thangapalam,
Secretary, (2023-2026) Church Council,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC),
P.B.No.86, Tranquebar House,
Melapudur, Trichy - 625 001.
4.Mr.S.Gnanaprakasam,
Treasurer, (2023-2026) Church Council,
_______________
Page No. 1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC),
P.B.No.86, Tranquebar House,
Melapudur, Trichy- 625 001.
5.The Director,
Directorate of Collegiate Education,
577, Anna Salai, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015.
6.The Director,
Directorate of School Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the second to fourth
respondents from occupying the office of the firs respondent and its
institutions and discharging any function relating to the election of office
bearers of the first respondent organization and its SYNOD for the term
2026-2029 and consequently to appoint Former Judges or Committee of
Judges of this Honourable Court as Administrator(s) for administering the
affairs of the first respondent and its educational institutions, for
streamlining the electoral college strictly in accordance with the
Constitution of the first respondent and conduct a free and fair election for
the posts of office bearers of the first respondent in accordance with the
Constitution of the first respondent, within a time to be stipulated by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thanka Sivan
For R3 : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram
_______________
Page No. 2 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
For R2 & R4 : Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.Selva Aditya
For R5 & R6 : Mr.R.Parthiban
Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu
*****
ORDER
The operative portion of this detailed order was pronounced and
uploaded on 15.07.2026 itself, considering the paucity of time, as the
election was proposed to be conducted on 16.07.2026, 17.07.2026 and
18.07.2026. The said operative portion is once again incorporated at the
end of this detailed order .
2. This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus forbearing the second to fourth respondents from occupying
the office of the first respondent and its institutions and from discharging
any function relating to the election of the office-bearers of the first
respondent organisation and its SYNOD for the term 2026–2029 and
consequently to appoint former Judges or a Committee of Judges of this
Hon’ble Court as Administrator(s) to administer the affairs of the first
respondent and its educational institutions, streamline the electoral college
strictly in accordance with the Constitution of the first respondent, and
_______________
Page No. 3 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
conduct a free and fair election to the posts of office-bearers of the first
respondent in accordance with its Constitution.
3. The issue has arisen on account of the multiple fixation of the
electoral roll by the first respondent for the proposed election for triennial
2026-2029 to the Church Council at the SYNOD of the first respondent,
the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC). The dispute specifically
relates to the number of Lay Delegates [hereinafter referred to as
‘delegates’] elected from each Pastorate. The SYNOD is the sovereign
legislative body of all the churches under the first respondent. The
SYNOD consists of the following members:
COMPOSITION OF THE SYNOD
a) Ex-Officio b) Elected lay delegates c) Nominated
Members_______________
Page No. 4 of 28https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
1) The Bishop Lay delegates elected from various The CC shall
(President) Pastorates as per the following nominate not more
2) The members of the scale. than 10 members
CC bearing in mind
3) The Treasurer of the representation of
CC, if he is not a special and
member of the CC. NOTE: unrepresented
4) The Chairman and interests and the
one lay member of the (1) Where a Pastorate can ratio between the
EB elected from send only one delegate, he lay and clergy.
among themselves. shall be elected by the PC.
5) The Chairman of When a pastorate can send NOTE: The
Boards of two, one shall be elected number of clergy
Management of the by the PC and one by the delegates to the
Institutions of special P.Conference. When one Synod shall be
character or the can send three, two shall 40% of the
Secretary in case the be elected by the P.C. and number of
Chairman is an ex- one by the P. Conference approved lay
officio member. and so on. delegates. The
actual composition
6) The Deaconess (2) One lay delegate each of clergy delegates
mother or any other elected by the DC. shall be
Deaconess elected by determined by the
the Deaconess Board, CC on the basis of
in case the Deaconess seniority, with
mother is not able to reference to the
attend. date of ordination
7) TELC Pastors in in the case of
active service, Pastors.
including those under
the Board of
Management of the
Institutions of special
character, Gurukul,
UTC and TTS subject
to c) Note given
below.
8) Ordained
Missionaries in the
Service of the TELC,
Subject to c) Note
given below.
_______________
Page No. 5 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
4. The petitioner is the former Secretary of the first respondent and
an elected delegate of the Anna Nagar Pastorate, Chennai. The first
respondent, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC), is the apex
body. The Church Council of the first respondent is elected by the
SYNOD. The final listed prepared by the first respondent, Tamil
Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC), consists of the following members:
1 Clergymen / Pastors, including the Bishop 134
2 Non Clergymen / Lay Church Council Members 5
3 District Council Members 11
4 Board Members 17
5 Nominated Members 10
6 Lay Delegates from Pastorates 375
Sub Total 552
Less : Ineligible Lay Delegates from Pastorates 23
Total 529
5. The Pastors of the respective Pastorates are appointed by the first
respondent and they can be transferred from one Pastorate to another.
They are clergies who serve sermons to the member of the congregation.
6. Out of the aforesaid 552 persons constituting the SYNOD for the
_______________
Page No. 6 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
purpose of electing the Church Council, which has to administer various
educational institutions run by the first respondent, 23 delegates [from 8
Pastorates, according to the first respondent and from 12 Pastorates
according to the petitioner] have not been included in the SYNOD, which
is scheduled to assemble between 16.07.2026 and 18.07.2026 for electing
the members of the Church Council.
7. According to the petitioner, the delegates from the following 12
Pastorates have been excluded:
(1) Royapuram
(2) Tiruninravur
(3) Chengalpat
(4) Melamaiyur
(5) Pondicherry
(6) Tranquebar House
(7) Anaikadu
(8) Thondi
(9) Dindigul
(10)Mudukulathur
(11)Kinathukadavu
(12)Erode
8. Whereas, according to the second and fourth respondents, the
Tiruninravur and Tranquebar House Pastorates have been included, while
the Thondi and Mudukulathur Pastorates have not sent the names of their
_______________
Page No. 7 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
delegates. As regards the other eight Pastorates, the learned counsel for
the second and fourth respondents would submit that they are not
qualified, as they have neither conducted elections nor made the requisite
contributions to the first respondent.
9. The reason put forth by the second and fourth respondents for not
including the names of the said 23 delegates [from 8 Pastorates, according
to the first respondent and from 12 Pastorates according to the petitioner]
is that the respective Pastorates have either not made their contribution to
the first respondent and/or not sent the names of the elected delegates
from their Pastorates and therefore, names of 23 persons have not been
included in SYNOD for the election to be held between 16.07.2026 and
18.07.2026.
10. The first respondent, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church
(TELC), was registered as a society under the provisions of the Madras
Societies Registration Act, 1881 (Madras Act III of 1881). However, it
has not been registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975). The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in H.A. Martin and Others v. Moses Thambi Pillai and
_______________
Page No. 8 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
Others [a case concerning the first respondent, TELC], (2015) 2 SCC 121
has held as follows:
“20. We are of the opinion that such a
construction is not called for in view of the scheme of
the Act and more particularly scheme of Section 4 of
the Act. We have already noticed that Section 4(3)
expressly excludes the operation of Sections 4(1) and
4(2) thereby relieving both the classes of Societies – the
Societies formed after coming into the existence of the
1975 Act and the Societies which were in existence but
not registered under any law prior to the
commencement of the 1975 Act – covered by Sections
4(1) and 4(2) which have for their object the promotion
of religion. In our opinion, the expression
“Societies” (registered under the 1860 Act) occurring
in Section 53 must be understood to mean only those
Societies which do not fall under the exemption
granted under Section 4(3) of the Act. Otherwise the
operation of the Act would result in such an absurd
situation where Societies coming into existence after
the commencement of the Act or unregistered Societies
existing on the date of the commencement of the Act are
not obliged to register and comply with the discipline of
the Act but the existing registered Societies on the date
of commencement of the Act are obliged to comply with
the regulatory conditions of the Act, notwithstanding
the fact that the activity of all the abovementioned three
classes of the Societies is to promote religion. Unless
the expression “Societies” occurring under Section 53
of the Act is understood to mean Societies other than
those whose object is promotion of religion, athletics or
sports, the Act would result in creation of two classes of
Societies having the same object, but one class is
subjected to the discipline of the Act and the other class
exempted from it – all other things being equal except
the accident of an existing Society on the date of the Act_______________
Page No. 9 of 28https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026also happens to be a Society registered under the 1860
Act. Such an interpretation which would be in violation
of Article 14 is certainly required to be avoided. There
can neither be any reasonable basis for such
classification nor any purpose to be achieved by such
classification. Therefore, the Act is not applicable to
TELC at all.
21. Looked at in the abovementioned background
of the statutory scheme, we are of the opinion that the
entire litigation between the parties herein is without
any basis in law. It resulted in wastage of time of the
judiciary as well as the administration. Apparently
neither of the parties nor the administration had the
time to examine or inclination to examine the scheme of
the 1975 Act. We are sorry to say, even the judiciary
(Bar & Bench) did not do any better.
22. In view of our above conclusion, it is really
not necessary for us to examine various submissions
made in this appeal by both the parties as all the
submissions proceeded on the assumption that TELC
is a Society governed by the provisions of the Act.
23. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed.
The judgment under appeal is set- aside. The second
respondent, if he still has any legally tenable grievance
de hors the 1975 Act, is free to pursue such remedy
available to him under the law. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to
costs.”
11. The Larger Bench of this Court in D.Bright Joseph vs. Church
of South India (CSI), Synod Secretariat and others, 2024 (2) CTC 369
has held as under:
_______________
Page No. 10 of 28https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026“24. To summarize the issue now in reference, it can be
stated that:
(i) the respondents 1 and 2 are running 2300 schools,
150 colleges and 104 hospitals in India. Therefore, the
public duty that they discharge falls within the contours
of Article 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.
(ii) The Courts have emphasized that educational
institutions which nurture and develop young minds
should ensure quality education and high standards of
integrity to the persons passing through their institutes.
Therefore, persons administering and managing these
institutions should be above board.
(iii) Since the educational institutions run by
respondents 1 and 2, both aided as well as unaided, are
bound by statutory regulations of varying degrees, they
are amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Any act of the
management who are in administration of these
institutes / hospitals likely to bring down the standards
of both education as well as medical services can be
challenged by any person invoking the rights under
Article 226 and in that sense, respondents 1 and 2
would fall within the category of any person or
authority as described under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
(iv) The educational agency of the institutions run by
the first respondent is the Synod and the Constitution of
the Synod has a direct impact on the quality and
standards of the educational institutions/hospitals.
Therefore, any act impairing / impacting the process of
electing the Synod would have a direct impact on the
quality and standard of these institutions/hospitals.
(v) Apart from running educational institutions,
respondents 1 and 2 are also maintaining churches and
_______________
Page No. 11 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
discharging functions of the clergy. These functions are
outside the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
(vi) A person aggrieved by the acts of respondents 1
and 2 relating to the above can definitely move this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
ensure the due compliance of this public duty.”
12. The above views are based on several decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, particularly the decision in St. Mary’s Education Society
and Another v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others, (2023) 4 SCC
498. The Larger Bench of this Court in D.Bright Joseph case referred to
supra has observed as under:
“22. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of St.Mary’s Education Society and
Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others
reported in 2023 (4) SCC 498, the question was
whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India would be maintainable against a
private unaided minority institution. The learned
Judges had posed the following question to themselves.
“Even if a body performing a public duty is
amenable to writ jurisdiction are all its
decisions subject to judicial review or only
these decisions which have a public element
therein can be judicially reviewed under the
writ jurisdiction?
The learned Judges observed that the appellant was a
registered society running an educational institution_______________
Page No. 12 of 28https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026founded by a group of French Catholic Nuns in 1893.
The school had absolutely no governmental control
over its administration and functioning. The school was
affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE). After discussing the CBSE’s Affiliation Bye
laws, the Bench observed that the CBSE was itself a
society registered under the Societies Registration Act
and schools affiliated to it is not a creature of the
statute and hence not a statutory body. After discussing
the march of law with reference to judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India observed
as follows in paragraph 43.
“43. In the background of the above legal
position, it can be safely concluded that power
of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be exercised by the
High Court even if the body against which an
action is sought is not State or an authority or
an instrumentality of the State but there must
be a public element in the action complained
of.”
Ultimately, the learned Judges has summed up their
analysis as follows:
“75.1. An application under Article 226 of the
Constitution is maintainable against a person
or a body discharging public duties or public
functions. The public duty cast may be either
statutory or otherwise and where it is
otherwise, the body or the person must be
shown to owe that duty or obligation to the
public involving the public law element.
Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of
public function, it must be established that the
body or the person was seeking to achieve the
same for the collective benefit of the public or
a section of it and the authority to do so must_______________
Page No. 13 of 28https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026be accepted by the public.
75.2. Even if it be assumed that an educational
institution is imparting public duty, the act
complained of must have a direct nexus with
the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably
a public law action which confers a right upon
the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 for a
prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breach
of mutual contracts without having any public
element as its integral part cannot be rectified
through a writ petition under Article 226.
Wherever Courts have intervened in their
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226,
either the service conditions were regulated by
the statutory provisions or the employer had
the status of “State” within the expansive
definition under Article 12 or it was found that
the action complained of has public law
element.
75.3. It must be consequently held that while a
body may be discharging a public function or
performing a public duty and thus its actions
becoming amenable to judicial review by a
constitutional court, its employees would not
have the right to invoke the powers of the
High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect
of matter relating to service where they are not
governed or controlled by the statutory
provisions. An educational institution may
perform myriad functions touching various
facets of public life and in the societal sphere.
While such of those functions as would fall
within the domain of a “public function” or
“public duty” be undisputedly open to
challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of
the Constitution, the actions or decisions
taken solely within the confines of an ordinary
contract of service, having no statutory force
_______________
Page No. 14 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
or backing, cannot be recognised as being
amenable to challenge under Article 226 of
the Constitution. In the absence of the service
conditions being controlled or governed by
statutory provisions, the matter would remain
in the realm of an ordinary contract of service.
75.4. Even if it be perceived that imparting
education by private unaided school is a
public duty within the expanded expression of
the term, an employee of a non- teaching staff
engaged by the school for the purpose of its
administration or internal management is
only an agency created by it. It is immaterial
whether “A” or “B” is employed by school to
discharge that duty. In any case, the terms of
employment of contract between a school and
non- teaching staff cannot and should not be
construed to be an inseparable part of the
obligation to impart education. This is
particularly in respect to the disciplinary
proceedings that may be initiated against a
particular employee. It is only where the
removal of an employee of non-teaching staff
is regulated by some statutory provisions, its
violation by the employer in contravention of
law may be interfered with by the Court. But
such interference will be on the ground of
breach of law and not on the basis of
interference in discharge of public duty.”
23. From the conspectus of the above principles
and judgments which describe a public duty, it is amply
evident that the respondent apart from its ecclesiastical
functions, is running and managing various schools,
colleges and hospitals. The respondent is definitely
discharging the public function and if any action taken
by them which is detrimental to the discharge of this
duty, a writ petition would definitely be maintainable.
_______________
Page No. 15 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
Unlike, Article 32 of the Constitution of India any
person even if he is not a person aggrieved can invoke
the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by the
fact that respondents 1 and 2, by manipulating the
electoral process are nominating persons of
questionable character, especially against whom
criminal proceedings have been directed. Further, an
amendment to increase the age of superannuation has
been put in place to ensure that the persons now in
management can continue for a further period
unopposed. The activities of such persons would
seriously impair the standards of education as also the
institutions. Therefore, taking note of the fact that it is
these persons who constitute the educational agency,
the writ petition is maintainable.”
[Note: Paragraphs in Bold are extract from the decision of the Honourable
Supreme Court in St. Mary’s Education Society and Another v.
Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Others, (2023) 4 SCC 498.]
13. However, a slightly contrary view was taken by the Division
Bench of this Court in Rev.D.Soundarapandiyan v. The Correspondent,
Sarah Tucker College and Others, rendered on 08.08.2024 in W.A.(MD)
No.1345 of 2024, and in Rev.V.M.S.Tamil Selvan v. S. Mamallan and
Others, rendered on 23.09.2024 in W.A.(MD) No.1059 of 2024 etc. batch.
14. Insofar as elections are concerned, suffice to state that the law
on the subject is well settled. Once the election notification has been
issued, it is not open for any person to interdict the election process and
_______________
Page No. 16 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
derail the same. In this regard, decisions have been rendered not only in
the context of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, Trusts Act, as well as bodies such as the first
respondent. In the decision of this Court in C.S.Bhuvaneswari and others
v. The State Election Commissioner and others, 2012 (1) CTC 67, it has
been held that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court
can, in the rarest of rare cases, interfere with the election process.
15. Thus, it is evident that the election to the first respondent body
cannot be held to be strictly outside the purview of the writ jurisdiction of
this Court. If the first respondent is found to have undertaken multiple
electoral processes or to have nominated persons with a view to
destabilise the administration of the various aided and unaided
educational institutions run by it, the same would warrant interference by
this Court.
16. The first respondent ultimately controls the administration
of education through its various educational institutions, it renders
a public service. The first respondent is, therefore, amenable to the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, having regard to the wide powers conferred upon this Court
under the said Article.
_______________
Page No. 17 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
17. The relevant provisions for the purpose of the present
discussion are contained in Chapter VIII of the Tamil Evangelical
Lutheran Church Rules, 1991, which deals with the “Funds of the
Church”. Rules 162 and 163 of the said Rules read as follows:
“162. PURPOSES FOR WHICH FUNDS ARE TO BE
MAINTAINED:
The Church has to keep sufficient funds to
maintain its agents, employees and pastors, to conduct
divine services and to administer the sacraments, to be
responsible for the educational and other works, for the
propagation of the Gospel, and for the upkeep of its
buildings and proper care of its properties.
163. SOURCES OF INCOME:
The chief sources of income for the Church from
its members are their contributions to the Church Fund,
Harvest Offerings, and Income from Ministerial Acts.
Annual Income, for the purpose of classifying a
Pastorate into Class A, B and C and determining its
right to elect a certain specified number of members
to the PC, DC, SCC and Synod shall be the average of
the Pastorate aggregate income under the heads above
mentioned (Church Fund contribution, Harvest
Offerings and Ministerial Acts) and also under the head
Undial Kalayam collections for the three preceding
years given in the almanac.”
18. A reading of Rule 163 of the aforesaid Rules makes it clear that
_______________
Page No. 18 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
the Pastorates are to be classified as Class A, Class B and Class C for the
purpose of determining the right to elect the specified number of members
to the Pastorate Committee (PC), District Council (DC), SYNOD
Continuation Committee (SCC) and SYNOD. The functions of each of
these Classes of Pastorats are specified in the aforesaid Tamil Evangelical
Lutheran Church Rules, 1991, which reads as follows:
Class A Class B Class C
Self-supporting Pastorates Self-supporting Pastorates Subsidized Pastorates
with special rights and with limited rights and
privileges. privileges.
Note: The CC shall have the power to fix, raise and lower the status of the
Pastorates, as per Rules
19. Depending upon the income of the Pastorate, the number of
delegates to be elected from the respective Pastorates to represent them in
the SYNOD is as follows:
Annual Income No. of delegates to be
(as per Rule 163) elected
Rs.1001 to Rs.2000 1
Rs.2001 to Rs.5000 2
Rs.5001 to Rs.15,000 3
Rs.15,001 to Rs.25,000 4
Rs.25,001 and above 5
_______________
Page No. 19 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
Note: (1) Where a Pastorate can send only one delegate, he
shall be elected by the PC. When a pastorate can send two,
one shall be elected by the PC and one by the P. Conference.
When one can send three, two shall be elected by the P.C. and
one by the P. Conference and so on.
(2) One lay delegate each elected by the DC
20. The Rules also prescribe a financial qualification for the
election of Pastorate Committee members. Rule 163 provides that the
annual income, for the purpose of classifying a Pastorate into Class A, B
or C and determining its right to elect a specified number of members to
the PC, DC, SCC and SYNOD, shall be the average of the aggregate
income of the Pastorate under the heads mentioned above, namely,
Church Fund contribution, Harvest Offerings, Ministerial Acts and Undial
Kalayam collections, for the three preceding years as reflected in the
Almanac.
21. Thus, it is evident that the income of a Pastorate is relevant
only for its classification into Class A, Class B and Class C and for
determining its right to elect a specified number of members to the PC,
DC, SCC and SYNOD.
_______________
Page No. 20 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
22. Thus, it is evident that depending upon the income of the
respective Pastorates, the number of elected delegates are to be sent to the
SYNOD. The Pastors are appointed by the first respondent and are its
employees. It is informed that 134 Pastors are serving in 130 Pastorates.
They are duty-bound to furnish the particulars of the income of the
respective Pastorates to the first respondent. Thus, the eligibility of lay
members to be sent to SYNOD is to be sent by the respective Pastors to
the first respondent.
23. Rule 163 of the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church Rules,
1991 does not stipulate that the delegates from each Pastorate are to be
nominated or elected to represent the SYNOD only based on the
contribution made by the respective Pastorates to the first respondent. It
only provides that the number of delegates to be included in the SYNOD
shall depend upon the income of the respective Pastorates. Therefore, the
particulars of the income ought to have been furnished by the respective
Pastorates through their Pastors to the first respondent.
24. Thus, it is evident that the exclusion of delegates i.e., lay
delegates from the respective Pastorates on the ground of lower income or
non-payment of contribution to the first respondent is of no significance
_______________
Page No. 21 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
or relevance for determining the number of delegates in SYNOD. In the
present case, as mentioned above, all the Pastorates were included in the
first SYNOD Notification dated 13.04.2026. The instructions and the
timeline given in the said SYNOD Notification read as under:
Instruction and Norms dated 13.04.2026 for the 45th
Triennial Synod 2026 for the Election of the Church
Council of TELC to be held on the 16 th, 17th & 18th
July 2026 at the TELC Shalom Auditorium,
Tranquebar House, Trichy-1The following Instructions and Norms have been
laid down by the Church Council for the Election of the
Church Council of TELC to be held on 16th, 17th & 18th
of July 2020, in accordance to the Church Rules.
1. The Pastorates are given time till 25.04.2026 at
4.00 PM to submit the accounts upto March
2026 and the Pending Quota payable to the
Central Treasury. No further extension of time
will be given.
2. Pastorates who have not submitted their
Accounts and those Pastorates who have
Quota arrears will not be permitted to
participate in the Church Council Election.
3. For their names to be included in the
Tentative/Final Voters & Eligible Lists, the
members should have paid their Church Fund
upto March 2026.
4. The names of PC/AC Treasurers & PC/AC
former Treasurers who have not submitted the_______________
Page No. 22 of 28https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026Pastorate Accounts during their tenure in office
shall not be included in the Tentative/Final
Voters and Eligible Lists as per the Church Rule
182 A & B.
5. The names of Pastors/Agents who are occupying
the Official TELC Quarters allotted to them even
after their retirement, shall not be included in the
Tentative/Final Voters and Eligible Lists as per
the Church Rule 182 A & B.
6. The names of the Congregation Members who
have Rental Arrears or not paying Increased Rent
as per the demand notice issued by the Property
officer TELC shall not be included in the
Tentative/Final Voters and Eligible Lists as per
the Church Rule 19(5).
7. The spouse shall be included in the
Tentative/Final voters list and eligible list if their
husband/wife, whether Lutheran or Non-
Lutheran Protestant are paying Church Fund
regularly as per the described rates, Rule 17(5) of
Church Rule.
8. The Church Council reserves its right to issue
further directions for ensuring free and fair
elections.
9. All the Pastorate Chairmen are requested to
strictly adhere to all the instructions and norms
laid down on 13.04.2026 by the Church Council
and the relevant Church Rules for the ensuring
Elections.
The Schedule for Announcements and relevant Church
Rules for election as follows:
_______________
Page No. 23 of 28https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026S.NO PARTICULARS DATE
I. I-Announcement & Tentative Voters 03.05.2026
list and Eligible List
II. II- Announcement & Final Voters and 10.05.2026
Eligible List
III. III- Final Announcement & Election 17.05.2026
IV. Election Result Announcement from 24.05.2026
Pulpit
V. One week time to Receive any 31.05.2026
objection
VI. Result to District Executive 01.06.2026
to
06.06.2026
VII. D.E. Meeting for Confirmation 10.06.2026
VIII. Election for a Delegate from DC as per 13.06.2026
rule 131-b(ii)
IX. First List of Delegates with Synod 16.06.2026
Programme
25. However, subsequently, 65 delegates were excluded and
thereafter, a few others were included, while 23 delegates from certain
other Pastorates, numbering 12 according to the petitioner and 8
according to the second and fourth respondents, were excluded. This
exercise is contrary to the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church Rules,
1991.
_______________
Page No. 24 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
26. Therefore, I am inclined to pass the following orders:
(i) In view of the above facts, it is therefore held that
the SYNOD Notifications, issued on 30.04.2026,
05.05.2026, 09.05.2026, 14.05.2026, 16.06.2026 and
finally on 04.07.2026 during the pendency of this Writ
Petition, are contrary to the mandate of provisions of the
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church Rules, 1991.
(ii) SYNOD Notification issued on 13.04.2026 ought
not to have been diluted.
(iii) The monetary contribution to the first
respondent is not a must to include the names of the
delegates from the respective Pastorates in SYNOD under
the aforesaid Rules.
(iv) Since the election proceedings have already
commenced, the first respondent is directed to ensure that
all the delegates from the respective Pastorates are allowed
to participate in the ensuing election to be held on
16.07.2026, 17.07.2026 and 18.07.2026 and cast their
votes.
(v) The first respondent shall include the delegates in
proportion as per the entitlement under Rule 131(b) read
with Rule 163 of the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran
_______________
Page No. 25 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
Church Rules, 1991.
(vi) Therefore, the names of all delegates from each
of the Pastorates depending upon the classification of the
Pastorates under the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran
Church Rules, 1991, shall be included, as the contribution
made by each Pastorate is not the sine qua non for
determining either the eligibility or the number of
delegates, who can participate in the proposed election for
the SYNOD.
27. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the
first respondent to hold the election as proposed to be held on 16.07.2026,
17.07.2026 and 18.07.2026 by including the names of all duly elected
delegates from each of the Pastorates, irrespective of the contribution
made by the respective Pastorates and thereafter proceed with the election
in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
15.07.2026
JEN
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
To
_______________
Page No. 26 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
1.The Director,
Directorate of Collegiate Education,
577, Anna Salai, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
2.The Director,
Directorate of School Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 006.
_______________
Page No. 27 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
C.SARAVANAN, J.
JEN
W.P.(MD) No.17561 of 2026
15.07.2026
_______________
Page No. 28 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
