- The SCA found the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair.
- The Board of Management was properly formed according to the Society’s constitution.
- The case has been sent back to the Society for a fresh look.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has made it clear that private organisations must offer fair disciplinary hearings before taking serious action against their members.
The court dismissed an appeal by the Divine Life Society of South Africa after a previous judgment overturned the expulsion of renunciant Avinash Parshotam.
The judgment confirms that although private organisations can discipline their members, they must follow the principles of natural justice when doing so.
Parshotam challenged the disciplinary decisions made against him in 2020. The society’s board found him guilty on seven charges, revoked his membership and told him to leave the ashram.
He went to the High Court in Durban, arguing that the board was not properly formed and that the disciplinary process was unfair. The High Court set aside the disciplinary decisions. The organisation then appealed.
Board was lawfully formed
The SCA found that the High Court was wrong to say the board was not properly formed just because it did not include renunciants.
The appeal court said the society’s constitution allows both householders and renunciants to serve on the board, but it does not require both groups to be there all the time.
The court also ruled that historical resolutions in the constitution’s appendices are only there for guidance. They are not binding rules for how the board should be made up.
The hearing was not fair
Even though the society succeeded in the board’s composition, the appeal failed because the disciplinary process did not follow the rules of natural justice.
The SCA found that Parshotam was not given enough notice of the charges before the hearing, so he could not properly prepare his defence.
The organisation also did not give him the evidence supporting the charges before asking him to respond. This meant he could not properly challenge the case against him. Also, the board used previous misconduct allegations when deciding on punishment, but did not let Parshotam respond to those issues first.
The court also pointed out that the same board members investigated, charged, prosecuted and decided the case. This made it seem like the process was not impartial.
The matter returns to society
The SCA dismissed the society’s appeal and confirmed that the disciplinary findings and sanctions against Parshotam are still set aside. The court changed the High Court’s order and sent the disciplinary matter back to the society.
The court said it is now up to society to decide if it wants to start fresh proceedings that follow the rules of natural justice.
Parshotam’s cross-appeal asking for more relief was dismissed. The society must pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs for two lawyers.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
