The Meghalaya High Court has held that a Deputy Commissioner cannot determine the religious jurisdiction of a church by interpreting the internal constitution of a religious denomination. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew ruled that executive authorities must remain within their lawful powers and cannot decide disputes concerning religious administration under the guise of maintaining public order.
Background
The judgment arose from a dispute within Mawkhar Presbyterian Church, Shillong, concerning its relationship with the Khasi Jaintia Presbyterian Synod Sepngi and the proposed involvement of the KJP Synod Mihngi in providing pastoral care.
Amid the dispute between rival groups, the Deputy Commissioner of East Khasi Hills issued directions restricting third-party involvement in the Church's affairs. A show-cause notice followed, and subsequent orders directed the KJP Synod Mihngi to stop providing pastoral services and administering religious sacraments.
The Church and its Secretary, Geraldton Pakma, challenged these actions before the High Court, alleging interference with their constitutional protections under Articles 25 and 26.
The Court acknowledged that the administration could take preventive measures to maintain peace. However, it emphasised that disagreements between rival groups did not grant the executive unlimited authority over religious institutions.
The judgment stated:
"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."
Justice Thangkhiew observed that the Deputy Commissioner had relied on the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India to determine whether ministers belonging to one Synod could provide pastoral care to the congregation. Such questions, the Court held, fell outside the officer's administrative jurisdiction.
The Court also clarified that registering a church as a society for property management, banking and other secular purposes did not authorise the State to assume control over its religious functions.
On restrictions imposed on meetings within the Church's schools, halls and premises, the Court found that an indefinite, blanket prohibition could not be justified merely because an internal dispute existed. Preventive measures must be proportionate to the threat they seek to address.
The High Court quashed the show-cause notice dated May 13, 2026, and the two orders dated June 19, 2026, concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction and pastoral services.
It also interfered with the communication dated May 8, 2026, and the directions recorded on March 12, 2026, insofar as they imposed blanket or indefinite restrictions without a specific, demonstrable threat to public order.
The Court clarified that it had not decided the validity of the Church's proposed disassociation from the Synod, the appointment or removal of pastors, or the competing claims over Church management. Those issues remained open for determination by the competent forums.
Accordingly, the writ petition was partly allowed and disposed of.
