In This Issue
* A farce called the Synod Court
* CSITA declares CSI members “strangers”
* Fallout from failed 4B deal continues in Nandyal
Justice, as the well known saying goes, should not only be done, but should be seen to be done. Unfortunately this adage means little to CSI bishops, who well and truly are a law unto themselves. Which is probably why the five bishops in the Synod Court hearing grave charges against one of their own, Bishop Manickam Dorai of Coimbatore, saw nothing wrong in seating the accused alongside them. This even while they were hearing Coimbatore diocesan officials give evidence against the accused (see CCC Newsletter No 29 for summary of Synod chargesheet against Dorai). It should be elementary knowledge that a prosecution witness deposing in a trial would feel tremendous pressure against speaking the truth if he/she were to see the accused seated right alongside the judges themselves. In a sense, the bishop judges, many of whom also have criminal illegalities against their name, were sending a clear message to the witnesses: we don't want to know the truth!
Some CSI activists who gatecrashed the court hearing at the Synod office in Chennai on 27th & 28th July 2011 vociferously objected to the accused being seated alongside the judges in the court headed by Deputy Moderator G. Devakadasham. They were aghast that Bishop Dorai, the accused, was even allowed from his perch alongside the judges to question the witnesses as they were giving testimony. The court scene was well and truly representative of what the Bible says in Isaiah 59:14 “And judgement is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.”
The CCC would like to thank Dr Julius Daniel, General Secretary of the Coimbatore-based Church of South India People’s Welfare Centre and its Salem Area Secretary V.C Ravi Chandran for gatecrashing the Synod hearings and exposing the farce being enacted there. When Devakadasham, who was in the chair, objected to their uninvited entry into the court hall, Chandran told him bluntly he was there as an employer to check if his employees were working as they should be. “It is my contribution to the Church that helps pay your salary” Chandran reminded the deputy moderator. The CCC also commends Rev.Stanley Kumar, CSI Area Chairman for Salem for his bold deposition and Geetha Kennedy, the principal of the CSI Polytechnic in Salem for the quiet and effective manner in which she gave her evidence against Dorai. Dr Julius Daniel has now written to the Deputy Moderator in a letter dated 1st August 2011 for permission to have the People’s Welfare Centre produce its own evidence against Dorai at the next court hearing scheduled for 5th August. THE CCC URGES ALL CSI MEMBERS WHO CAN MAKE IT TO THE SYNOD OFFICE IN CHENNAI FOR THE HEARING ON 5TH AUGUST TO DO SO AND THEREBY DEMONSTRATE THE LAITY’S COMMITMENT TO SEEING THAT JUSTICE IS NOT SUBVERTED. Dr Julius Daniel can be contacted at (0)9944028590 for further information.
Who are the real owners of the CSI Trust Association (CSITA) the apex body that controls over Rs one lakh crore worth of CSI property? This question has assumed importance following a letter written by the CSITA Hon. Secretary and General Secretary of the CSI, M.M. Philip, to the Registrar of Companies (RoC). The missive followed the RoC directing the CSITA to respond to a complaint by John Dorai, General Secretary of the CSITA Beneficiaries Association, a lay group, that the Articles of Association of the CSITA were not consistent with the provisions of the Companies Act under which the body is registered. The letter from the CSITA Hon. Secretary is attached here as Annexures 1.0 and 1.1.
In his letter to the RoC, M.M. Philip, says “the complainant Mr John. S. Dorai is not a member of CSITA and is a stranger and as such any representation by a stranger is void u/s 234 (7) of the Companies Act. Therefore Mr John S. Dorai cannot said (sic) to have any interest in our section 25 company….. We therefore request you to kindly treat the investors complaint does not carry any substance and needs to be brush aside and needs to be disposed off without any merit for the complaint (sic)” Mr Philip is supposed to be a qualified architect but his grammar would be embarrassing even for a middle school student. That apart, virtually acknowledging Mr Dorai to be an “investor” while at the same time declaring him to be a “stranger” only demonstrates Mr Philip’s rank incompetence and unsuitability for the high posts he holds.
In a rejoinder sent to the RoC on 30th July 2011 (see Annexure 2.0), Mr Dorai has reiterated his fundamental charge that the office bearers of the CSITA are not elected in keeping with the provisions of the Companies Act and hence their functioning is illegal. He further points out that the four ex-officio heads of the CSITA are themselves there in their capacity as the main office bearers of an unincorporated body (the CSI is not a registered entity) and hence are in no position to deem him, a fee paying member of the church, to be a “stranger” to the CSITA. Mr Dorai has asked the RoC to adjudicate the dispute. In any case, there is nothing to stop the RoC from acting on its own on the basic issue -- of whether the Articles of Association of the CSITA are in consonance with the provisions of the Companies Act -- should it choose to do so.
In an explanatory e-mail note sent to CSI members, John Dorai writes: “The properties of the CSI is vested in CSITA for the benefit of the members of CSI like us present and future. If the claim of the CSITA that CSI members are strangers is agreeable, then the CSI or its members for whose benefit the properties are vested in CSITA will be barred from saying anything when the CSITA administers our properties detrimental to the interest of its beneficiaries. This would be a clear “breach of trust” committed by the CSITA. Though we are not members in the company board, we are yet beneficiaries and interested parties in the affairs of the CSITA.”
The reverberations caused by successful effort to cancel the illegal deal between Bishop P.J. Lawrence of Nandyal and 4B Healthcare Pvt Ltd with regard to the mission hospital in Nandyal continue. Following the Bishop’s illegal sacking of the Diocesan Secretary L. Sudhakar and Vice-President Dr P.A. Varaprasada Rao (both elected officials who as per the constitution cannot be replaced during their term unless they choose to leave office) for their strong opposition to the 4B deal, there has been more court action. The illegal circular issued by the new illegally appointed secretary of the diocese setting in motion the process for diocesan elections for the biennium 2011-2013 has now been stayed. The copy of the interim injunction granted is shown here in Annexure 3.0. It is likely that an administrative committee will be set up to manage the affairs of the diocese when the term of the current diocesan council expires in a few months. Analysts say this arrangement may actually be what the autocratic Bishop Lawrence wants as he can now run the show unhindered by any democratic oversight till he demits office late next year. Meanwhile 4 B has finally removed the “4B St. Werburgh CSI Hospital” from its website where the link to “our hospitals” (notice the plural) now features only one hospital where there used to be two listed http://4bhealthcare.org/our-hospitals/