In a significant legal ruling, the Meghalaya High Court has held that district authorities cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a religious denomination to resolve competing ecclesiastical claims, even while exercising their powers to maintain public order. Justice H S Thangkhiew delivered the ruling while partly allowing a writ petition filed by the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church. The court set aside multiple directives issued by the East Khasi Hills deputy commissioner that had restricted various religious and administrative activities on the church premises.
Origins in Financial Irregularities
The underlying dispute within the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church traces its beginnings back to financial irregularities that first came to light in 2019. According to the judgment details, an unexplained deficit of approximately Rs 2.86 crore was initially detected, followed by a subsequent audit alleging a misappropriation of around Rs 4.65 crore. An FIR was formally registered on August 3, 2019, concerning an alleged fraud amounting to about Rs 3.26 crore. Over time, the disagreement expanded significantly, engulfing issues related to the suspension and removal of pastor Reverend M Pyngrope and the church's affiliations with the Khasi Jaintia Presbyterian Synod Sepngi.
Congregation Resolution and Escalation
Tensions escalated further when the congregation adopted a formal resolution on February 1, 2026, to dissociate entirely from the Synod Sepngi. This decision triggered competing claims regarding who should manage the church administration and whether the KJP Synod Mihngi was authorized to continue providing pastoral services there. As rival factions filed numerous complaints and counter-complaints alongside initiating criminal proceedings, the district administration stepped in by imposing strict curbs on meetings and gatherings across church-managed properties, including local schools and halls. On June 19, the deputy commissioner specifically directed the KJP Synod Mihngi to halt all pastoral care and administration of sacraments at the institution, relying on internal clarifications concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the Presbyterian Church of India.
Judicial Scrutiny of Executive Overreach
Upon reviewing the matter, the High Court concluded that the deputy commissioner had clearly exceeded his jurisdiction by effectively acting as an arbiter to determine which Synod held rightful ecclesiastical authority over the church. The bench emphasized that the local administration cannot conclusively establish ecclesiastical jurisdiction simply by referencing the internal constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India. Consequently, the court quashed the May 13 show-cause notice alongside two separate orders issued on June 19. It also struck down portions of a May 8 communication and specific directions from March 12 that imposed blanket or indefinite restrictions on the internal functioning of the religious institution.
Scope of the Judgment
While granting relief to the petitioners, the High Court made it explicitly clear that its verdict does not validate the February 1 resolution nor does it settle disputes concerning the appointment or removal of pastors and church office bearers. The court noted that it had not resolved rival ownership claims over the management and control of the church, leaving all parties free to approach appropriate ecclesiastical, civil, or statutory forums for formal resolution. Simultaneously, the court affirmed that the district administration retains the authority to enforce lawful preventive measures whenever circumstances genuinely warrant action to safeguard public order or counter cognisable offenses.
