2021 officials’ suspension: Court raps diocese for ‘wilful disobedience’

A week after the controversial suspension of two principals, a 2021 court case over the suspension of two officials has come back to haunt the Karnataka Central Diocese of the Church of South India.

An additional city civil and sessions court on Saturday stayed a diocese resolution, saying it was in contempt of an earlier court order restraining the diocese from interfering in the functioning of the two officials.

The court termed the move by the first defendant in the case — Bishop Prasana Kumar Samuel — as an act of “disobedience”. He and Rev Navin K John, Presbyter-in-charge, are the first and second defendants.

Julian Sundersingh and Ashalatha Joshua, elected secretary and treasurer, respectively, of the St John’s Church Pastorate Committee for 2021-2024, had approached the court seeking a stay on their suspension, ratified by the diocese’s executive committee in November 2021.

The court, in an order dated April 21, 2022, restrained the defendants from interference in the complainants’ official duties and stayed three diocese resolutions passed in connection with their suspension.

Two months after the court verdict, the bishop, through an order dated June 17, 2022, suspended the officials again and Rev John called an emergency pastorate committee meeting to co-opt the new treasurer and secretary. The two officials moved court, seeking a stay on the fresh suspensions.

Gangadhara K N, additional city civil and sessions judge, noted in the July 16 order that the defendants “deliberately and intentionally” defied the order. The court also stayed the operation of the fresh suspension order and proceedings.

Questions

Sources in the St John’s Church said the officials were suspended after they expressed reservations about due processes not being followed in a church renovation project that began in April 2021.

“They were accused of obstructing administration and not being cooperative. The officials had asked questions on several matters, including the schedule of payments,” a church member told DH.

The defendants submitted in the court that the second suspension order was based on advice from the diocesan counsel that according to Rule 26 of the diocese’s constitution, the bishop, and not the executive committee, is the “sole authority” to suspend pastorate committee members.

The court noted that though the defendants had the opportunity to challenge its earlier order before the high court or seek modification of the order to exercise power vested under the diocese’s constitution, they chose to pass another order of suspension, in “wilful disobedience” of the court order.