Paster K.P. Kurien v. Indian Pentecostal Church of God, Hebron, Kumbanadu, Thiruvalla and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 ## **WP(C).No. 28749 of 2007(V)** OS.572/2005 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA ## **PETITIONER:** PASTER K.P. KURIEN, I.P.C. EBENEZER, MANJADI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW ## **RESPONDENTS** : 1. PASTER T.S. ABRAHAM, GENERAL PRESIDENT, INDIAN PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD, HEBRON, KUMBANADU, THIRUVALLA. 2. INDIAN PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD, HEBRON, KUMBANADU, THIRUVALLA, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, PASTER T.S. ABRAHAM AND SECRETARY K.M. JOSEPH. 3. PASTER K.M.JOSEPH, GENERAL SECRETARY, I.P.C. POST BOX NO.28, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. PASTER K.M.JOHN, - I.P.C. STATE SECRETARY, KARMEL BHAVAN, KOTTAMURICKAL P.O., CHENGANACHERRY. 5. PASTER K.C. THOMAS, - I.P.C. STATE SECRETARY, I.P.C. FAITH CENTRE, - P.B.NO.1217, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-5. 6. PASTER K.C.JOHN, I.P.C. CENTRAL PRESIDENT, THIRUVALLA, GOSPAL CENTRE, NEDUMPRAM, THIRUVALLA. R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS R1, R2, R3 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.) SRI.BABU VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON 29/2/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND CONSTITUTION OF THE I.P.C. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.8.2005 GIVEN BEFORE THE STATE PRESBYTERY AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE FALSE AND NOTICE DATED 8.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.29835/2005. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL MEETING ON 16.11.2005. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.572/2005. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE I.A.NO.3055/2005 FILED IN O.S.NO.572/2005. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DATED 29.11.2005 TO EXT.P8 EXT.P10 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 4 TO 5 DATED 5.6.2006. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.5.2006 ISSUED BY SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P12 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.6.2006 ISSUED BY MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P13 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN CMA.NO.16/2006. EXT.P14 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.8.2007 IN CMA.NO.16/2006 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P15 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO.1354/2005. EXT.P16 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.9.2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER INVITING PASTORS TO ATTEND MONTHLY MEETING. EXT.P17 COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 27.10.2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS APPOINTING THE NEW PASTOR, IN THE PLACE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 3.1.2006. EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 3.1.2006. EXT.R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS APPOINTING PASTOR N.S.ELIAS AS DISTRICT SECRETARY, IPC THIRUVALLA CENTRE, IN THE PLACE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.9.2007. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ ## **K.T.SANKARAN, J.** ## **-------------------------------------------W.P.(C). NO. 28749 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] February, 2008** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner challenges Ext.P12 order dated 23.6.2006 in I.A.No.3055 of 2005 in O.S.No.572 of 2005, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla, which was confirmed in Ext.P14 judgment dated 24.8.2007 in C.M.A.No.16 of 2006, Sub Court, Thiruvalla. By Ext.P12 order, the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court and that order was confirmed in appeal. 2. The petitioner is a Pastor of Pentecostal Church at Amalloor, Manjadi, Thiruvalla. That Church is a constituent church of the Indian Pentecostal Church of God (for short, referred to as 'the Church'). The Church is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, Act XXI of 1860, in Andhra Pradesh. Ext.P1 is the Memorandum of Association as well as the Constitution and by-laws of the Church. Ext.P1 contains two parts; Part – I being the Memorandum of Association and Part – II the Constitution and By-laws. Part-II is divided into XXI Articles and the Articles are again sub-divided by Sections. The Church has a General Council constituted as provided under Section-I of ArticleVII, consisting of not less than 21 members representing all the States or W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 2 :: Regions anywhere in the world in the ratio of 11 ministers to 10 believers of the Church. The General Council shall have a President, a Vice President, a General Secretary and a Joint Secretary, elected from among the Ministers and a Treasurer, elected from among the believers. Section-II of Article-VII provides for General Presbytery. The Minister Executives of the General Council, the Presidents, the Vice Presidents and Secretaries of the State/Region Councils shall form the General Presbytery. The spiritual administration of the Church shall be carried out by the General Presbytery. The General Presbytery shall be the Court of appeal in all matters of the Church and its decision shall be final. SectionIII of Article VII provides for the State/Region Council and also the State/Region Presbytery. It is provided therein that the Minister Members of the State/Region Councils shall form the respective State/Region Presbytery. Jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the Ministers vests in the State/Region Presbytery. Section-IV of Article-VII provides for the District Councils. 3. Section-I of Article-XII states that the Church believes in the five-fold ministry of the Church. They are: (1) Apostles (2) Prophets (3) Evangelists (4) Pastors and (5) Teachers. Sections V, VI and VII of Article-XII read as follows: W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 3 :: ## “SECTION-V ## MINISTERIAL DISCIPLINE Areas of Disciplinary action are serious unscriptural teaching, Ministerial Discourtesy, Causing dissention, immorality, Blasphemy, Mishandling of Church funds, Bring a reproach by making debts in the name of the church, General inefficiency in the ministry, Unethical commercial pursuits, Attempting to alienate a station, a church, worker, or property from the IPC, A marriage in violation of accepted Christian standard or any other misconduct unbecoming to a minister of the Gospel are some of the main reasons for disciplinary action. ## SECTION VI ## CREDENTIAL TERMINATION A minister who has been found guilty of violating or who has confessed in writing to have violated the principles set forth in the Bible or in this constitution shall be subject to disciplinary action by the District or State Presbytery and the said discipline shall be administered in brotherly love and kindness in an effort to lead the offending minister through a program of rehabilitation. The Presbytery shall weigh the decisions on the basis of the offence itself. In the event rehabilitation is not feasible, the minister shall have his credentials withdrawn and be dismissed. This shall be announced through proper channels. ## SECTION – VII ## THE RIGHT OF APPEAL Sixty days from the date of the notification of the decision of the State/Region Presbytery shall be allowed for such persons to appeal to the General Presbytery.” 4. Article VIII provides for the powers and duties of officers. Section-I(4) provides that in any form of emergency situation, the W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 4 :: President shall have the power to take appropriate action that he may deem fit. This shall be ratified in the respective Council within a period of thirty days. In the absence of the President, the Vice President shall have this power. In the absence of the Vice President, the Secretary shall use this power. Sub-section (7) of Section-I of Article-VIII states that the President shall be the guardian of faith and the constitution of the Church. 5. As stated above, the petitioner is a Pastor of the Church. He is also the District Secretary of the Church, Thiruvalla Centre and a member of the State Council of the Church. The petitioner is also a Member of the State Presbytery and the Secretary of the Kerala State Pastoral Board. 6. On 31.8.2005, the General President and the General Secretary signed and issued a letter (Ext.P2) to the Kerala State Council/Presbytery of the Church, directing to take appropriate action against the petitioner in respect of the matters mentioned in the letter. The Kerala State Council, in reply, issued a letter dated 5.10.2005 (Ext.P3), stating that the petitioner, Pastor K.P.Kurian, denied all the allegations made against him. It was further stated in the letter dated 5.10.2005 that, in the facts and circumstances, no action could be taken against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 7.10.2005, the General President of the Church issued an order removing the petitioner from his position as a W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 5 :: Pastor until further orders. This order was issued by the General President exercising his power under Section-I(4) of Article-VIII of the Constitution. Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit a reply within thirty days to the General Council/Presbytery of the Church. The contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent prevented him from offering any explanation, using police assistance. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.29835 of 2005 before the High Court complaining against the police interference in the dispute between him and the first respondent and for police protection to discharge his duties. That Writ Petition was disposed of as per judgment dated 5.11.2005. It was noticed that the order dated 7.10.2005 was issued by the General President invoking his powers to meet emergent situations. But no such emergent situation is referred to therein. However, this Court did not go into the matter in detail, as a civil suit, namely, O.S.No.482 of 2005, filed by the petitioner was pending before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. This Court took note of the willingness of the fifth respondent in that Writ Petition (first respondent in this Writ Petition) to convene a meeting of the General Council to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his position and the Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment with the following directions: “i. The 5[th] respondent shall convene the meeting of the General Council of the Indian Pentecostal Church on or before 20[th] instant, with due intimation to the petitioner and W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 6 :: the petitioner shall be allowed to explain his position before the General Council, which shall take a decision based on his explanation. ii. No police officer shall prevent him from entering the council meeting. iii. The parties shall abide by the decision of the General Council subject to the remedies provided in the Memorandum of Association or Constitution of the Church as the case may be or by the law of the land. iv. Until the decision is so taken by the General Council, Ext.P4 so far as the suspension is concerned shall be kept in abeyance. v. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merit of the case of either of the parties.” 7. As per the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, a meeting of the General Council was held on 16.11.2005. It is recorded in Ext.P6 minutes of the meeting that the petitioner was heard for a period of two hours and 45 minutes. After detailed hearing, the General Council resolved to approve the order passed by the General President. It was also resolved therein that the petitioner will no longer be a Member of the Church and he has no authority to function as a Minister or occupy any other office of the Church. It was declared that the petitioner has become an alien to the Church. On 22.11.2005, the petitioner filed the present suit, namely, O.S.No.572 of 2005, for a declaration that the decision dated 16.11.2005 is illegal and unenforceable and for an injunction restraining the defendants from W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 7 :: implementing the decision of the General Council dated 16.11.2005 and from preventing the petitioner from discharging his functions as a Pastor of the Church. Along with the suit, I.A.No.3055 of 2005 was filed for a temporary injunction. That application was opposed by the defendants by filing detailed objections. After considering the objections, the trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction as per Ext.P12 order, which was confirmed in appeal as per Ext.P14 judgment. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that the decision of the General Council is illegal and unsustainable and the General Council has no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against a Minister. It is also submitted that the power invoked by the General President under SectionI(4) of Article VIII does not clothe with him the right to remove a Pastor from his position as a Pastor or to declare a Member of the Church as an alien to the Church or to excommunicate a member of the Church. The petitioner contends that the petitioner being undoubtedly a Minister, he could be removed from that position only by the State Presbytery, as provided in Section III of Article VII of the Constitution. In so far as excommunication of a member is concerned, the petitioner contends that the same can be done by a local Church Committee as provided in Section-IV of Article-V of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that in the matter of disciplinary action as provided in Section-V of Article XII and W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 8 :: credential termination as provided in Section-VI of Article XII, a right of appeal is provided from the decision, the right of appeal being to the General Presbytery. It is submitted that the respondents have passed Ext.P6 resolution in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Constitution and that valuable civil rights of the petitioner are prejudicially affected by the illegal exercise of the powers by the Supreme Body, namely, the General Council. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that whatever may be the infirmities in the procedure adopted, even if there are such infirmities for argument sake, the well considered order and the judgment of the courts below should not be lightly interfered with by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that in the place of the petitioner another person was appointed as Pastor and he has taken charge. The respondents contended that the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the General Council has no jurisdiction and that the procedure adopted by the General Council is illegal in view of Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C) No.29835 of 2005. It is contended that had the General Council been not convened and had a decision not been taken by the General Council, it would have amounted to contempt of court for non-obeying the directions in Ext.P5 judgment. The petitioner himself wanted the General Council to hear the W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 9 :: dispute and to take a final decision. Having participated in the enquiry and having had full opportunity to put forward his grievances before the Supreme Body, the petitioner cannot thereafter pick holes here and there and try to offset the well considered decision of the General Council. A meeting of the General Council along with the General Presbytery was called. Later, it was noticed that as per Ext.P5 judgment, meeting of the General Council alone was contemplated. Accordingly, the members of the General Presbytery were informed and they were kept out. The meeting was, therefore, exclusively a meeting of the General Council, as stated in Ext.P6. The petitioner submitted before the General Council that the meeting was illegal as a combined meeting of the General Council and General Presbytery was not ordered to be convened by the High Court. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner had filed Contempt of Court Case No.1354 of 2005 against the respondents, which was closed as per Ext.P15 judgment. The petitioner wanted the General Presbytery members not to participate in the meeting and he stated so in the meeting when a joint meeting of the General Council and General Presbytery was held. That means the petitioner wanted the General Council to decide the issue. He wanted to keep out the General Presbytery members from the meeting. That was apparently complied with. Therefore, prima facie, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be justified in contending that a meeting of the General Presbytery was W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 10 :: not called to consider the question of disciplinary proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below committed an error in thinking that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the validity of Ext.P6 in view of Ext.P5 judgment wherein a General Council was directed to be convened. The counsel submitted that the question is whether action taken is in accordance with the Constitution. The body to take disciplinary action being not the President, the General Council could not approve and ratify the illegal action taken by the President. The competent authority to take disciplinary action being the State Presbytery and the State Presbytery having not taken any disciplinary action against the petitioner, it is contended that the General Council is not competent to finally decide the question of taking disciplinary action or to pass an order of excommunication and to declare the petitioner as alien to the Church. It is pointed out that excommunication is an extreme step and such a step was not contemplated even in Ext.P4 dated 7.10.2005. Curiously enough when it came to the General Council's confirmation/ratification, the General Council decided to declare the petitioner as an alien to the Church and to excommunicate him, an extreme step in so far as a believer of Church is concerned. The counsel also pointed out that though a direction was issued by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment to convene a meeting of the W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 ## :: 11 :: General Council and though it is mentioned that the parties shall abide by the decision of the General Council, the decision of the General Council could be challenged in accordance with law in any forum, which is legally available to the petitioner. It was pointed out that the expression “or by the law of the land” in the last paragraph of Ext.P5 judgment would clearly indicate that the petitioner could challenge the decision in a court of law and the observation in the judgment, that the parties shall abide by the decision, would only be subject to any challenge of the same in a court of law. 11. I am not inclined to hold that the remedy of the petitioner would be lost by the decision of the General Council. He is entitled to challenge the same on the ground that the provisions of the Constitution have not been complied with or that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. He is entitled to challenge the decision in Ext.P6, on any ground which is available to him under law. What was provided in Ext.P5 for the time being was that the dispute shall be resolved by the General Council and the parties shall abide by the decision subject to other remedies. It was intended only for avoiding unpleasant situation in the Church and in the wake of the petitioner seeking police protection and relief against police interference. Observations in Ext.P5, to my mind, would not take away the legal rights of the petitioner to contend that he was not validly W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 12 :: excommunicated, that the disciplinary proceedings were not validly taken against him or that the authority who took action against him had no authority to do so. These are all matters to be decided in the suit finally. The petitioner would be free to raise all these contentions and a decision on the questions involved in the suit shall be taken by the trial court on the merits. 12. The question arising for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the decision taken by the courts below declining interim relief to the petitioner is liable to be interfered with, by exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. After going through the orders passed by the courts below and after considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it would not be just to interfere with the order and judgment passed by the courts below, by invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is true that the contentions put forward by the petitioner cannot be brushed aside lightly. On going through the provisions of the Constitution, it can be seen, prima facie, that the procedural formalities are not fully complied with. The petitioner also may be justified in contending that the only authority who could take disciplinary action against him was the State Presbytery. The contention of the petitioner that he being a Minister, he could be removed only by the W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 13 :: State Presbytery is worthy of consideration. It may also be true that the action taken by the General President invoking his powers under Section I (4) of Article VIII may not probably justify the action which he has now taken against the petitioner. A perusal of the provisions of the Constitution would indicate that even after a Minister was found guilty, the discipline shall be administered in brotherly love and kindness in an effort to lead the offending Minister though a program of rehabilitation. Withdrawal of the credentials of a Minister is to be resorted to as a last resort after failure of rehabilitation as provided in Section VI of Article XII of the Constitution. There is no case that such a procedure has been followed in the present case. It cannot also be overlooked that though the State Presbytery has the disciplinary powers over a Minister, in so far as excommunication of any member of the Church is concerned, the local church committee has a role to play as per Section IV of Article V. An appeal is provided against the decision of the Church Committee to the District Council and against the decision of the District Council to the State Council. The decision of the State Council in the matter of excommunication shall be final. There is no case that the petitioner was specifically put to notice in the matter of excommunication and that the procedure prescribed by the Constitution has been followed scrupulously. Ext.R2(b) dated 3.1.2006 is pressed into service by the respondents to contend that the State Presbytery has taken a decision on 20.12.2005 to W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 14 :: remove the petitioner from the membership of the Church. Ext.R2(b) was issued pending the dispute before the civil court and before disposal of the application for temporary injunction. Ext.R2(b) decision was taken on the basis of the decision taken by the General Council and not independently by the State Presbytery. These are all matters which the trial court shall consider while disposing of the suit. 13. Probably, I would have taken a different view in the matter of grant of temporary injunction had I been called upon to decide the application. That a different view is possible is not a ground for interference with the order and judgment passed by the courts below in the matter of disposal of an application for temporary injunction. It is well settled that jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be invoked to set aside every incorrect order and that it could be invoked only when manifest injustice has been caused to a party. As stated earlier, the petitioner, without demur, accepted the suggestion that a meeting of the General Council would be convened to consider his grievances. The meeting was so convened and a decision was taken. The courts below did not think it fit to exercise their discretion in favour of the petitioner and to grant an order of temporary injunction. At this stage, the balance of convenience would also be not in favour of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view ## W.P.(C) NO.28749 OF 2007 :: 15 :: that all the disputes, contentions and questions shall be decided in the suit and the trial court shall decide the dispute untrammelled by any of the observations contained in any of the orders including this judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court shall expedite the disposal of the suit. A Pastor of the Church is now thrown out. I hope that the disputes could be resolved between the petitioner and the Church particularly when the provisions of the Constitution of the Church contemplates rehabilitation, reformation and transformation. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observations. **(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge** ahz/