District admin cannot act as ecclesiastical tribunal in church dispute: Meghalaya HC

The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that a district administration cannot assume the role of an ecclesiastical tribunal to resolve internal disputes within a church, while holding that authorities can take preventive measures to maintain public order.

The court partly allowed a writ petition filed by Mawkhar Presbyterian Church and quashed orders issued by the East Khasi Hills deputy commissioner restricting pastoral care and religious services at the church.

Justice H S Thangkhiew said the existence of a dispute between rival groups did not give the executive authority unlimited powers to regulate the internal affairs of a religious denomination.

“The existence of a dispute between two groups cannot, by itself, confer unlimited jurisdiction upon the executive authority to regulate the internal affairs of a religious denomination,” the court said.

The dispute at the church dates back to 2019, when an unexplained deficit of about Rs 2.86 crore was detected. An audit subsequently reported alleged misappropriation of around Rs 4.65 crore, while an FIR registered on 3 August 2019 concerned an alleged fraud involving Rs 3.26 crore, according to the judgment.

The dispute later expanded to disagreements over the suspension and removal of pastor Reverend M Pyngrope and the church's affiliation with the Khasi Jaintia Presbyterian Synod Sepngi.

On 1 February 2026, the congregation passed a resolution seeking to dissociate from the Synod Sepngi. This led to competing claims over the church's administration and whether the KJP Synod Mihngi could provide pastoral care there.

Amid complaints, counter-complaints and criminal proceedings between the rival groups, the district administration imposed several restrictions on meetings and activities at the church's schools, halls and other premises.

On 19 June, the deputy commissioner directed the KJP Synod Mihngi to stop providing pastoral care and administering sacraments at the church, relying partly on clarifications from the Presbyterian Church of India regarding ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

The High Court held that such a determination was beyond the deputy commissioner's authority.

“It cannot conclusively determine which Synod possesses ecclesiastical jurisdiction merely by relying upon the internal Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India,” the court said.

The court quashed the 13 May show-cause notice and two orders issued on 19 June, holding that they sought to determine or regulate ecclesiastical jurisdiction and religious functions.

It also set aside portions of a 8 May communication and 12 March directions insofar as they imposed a blanket or indefinite prohibition on the church's internal administration and functioning.

However, the court clarified that it had not ruled on the validity of the 1 February resolution, the appointment or removal of pastors or office bearers, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of either Synod, or the rival claims over management and control of the church.

It said authorities remained free to take lawful preventive or other action in cases involving an actual or imminent threat to public peace, violence, trespass, intimidation, destruction of property or other cognisable offences.

The rival parties were also free to pursue their claims before competent ecclesiastical, civil or statutory forums.