Pastor Sam Sudhakar vs. The President

Facts

The petitioner, Pastor Sam Sudhaker, filed a suit (O.S. No. 354 of 2023) seeking a declaration that a notification dated June 21, 2023, for the 6th Constituency Session of the North Tamil Conference of Seventh Day Adventists was null and void, and for a permanent injunction against respondents 1-5 from conducting the session with office bearers elected on August 16, 2018. He also filed an interim application (I.A. No. 2 of 2023) for an injunction. The trial court adjourned the interim application along with the suit. The petitioner then filed this Civil Revision Petition (CRP (MD) No. 1832 of 2023) challenging the trial court's order. The respondents contended that they were duly elected and the petitioner lacked locus standi.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to file the suit and the interim application. It reiterated observations from a previous case (CRP(MD) No. 2574 of 2015) where the petitioner was found to be neither a participant, delegate, nor voter, and thus could not question the election's conduction. The Court found the petitioner's actions to be a clear abuse of the process of law, similar to the situation in the prior case where the plaint was struck down. The Court also noted that the election process had been completed, and the result was only withheld due to an interim order from this Court. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Tejbahadur Vs Shri Narendra Modi, the Court emphasized that a person must have a sufficient interest to support a legal claim, and locus standi is an integral part of the cause of action. The Court concluded that the petitioner, being a stranger without locus standi, had filed an abusive suit. Consequently, the interim order passed by this Court was vacated, and the respondents were permitted to publish the election results. The Court also noted that a remedy was available to the respondents to approach the trial court for striking off the plaint.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the convening of the constituency session, considering he is neither a voter nor a contestant in the election process? (Question of law) 2. Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretionary power in adjourning the interim application instead of granting an injunction, given the alleged urgency and potential for the suit's relief to become infructuous? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents were not duly elected as per the bye-laws, and the validity of their election was questioned in a prior suit (O.S. No. 998 of 2018). He contended that without deciding the validity of the August 16, 2018 election, the respondents had no authority to convene the current meeting, which would affect the rights of parties in the earlier suit. He also argued that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion properly by adjourning the interim application, potentially rendering the suit's relief infructuous. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that they were duly elected in the August 16, 2018 election, conducted by an Election Officer appointed by the High Court. They asserted that the petitioner had no locus standi as he was neither an elector nor a candidate, and had no interest in the North Tamil Conference's affairs. They cited previous High Court observations in CRP(MD) No. 2574 of 2015, which found the petitioner's conduct to be an abuse of process and struck down a plaint. They also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Tejbahadur Vs Shri Narendra Modi regarding locus standi.