Meghalaya HC: DC can't decide church faction dispute via its constitution

The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that the state administration cannot settle which faction of a church holds religious authority by reading and interpreting the denomination's own constitution.

Justice HS Thangkhiew made the observation while hearing a writ petition by the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church in Shillong and its secretary. They had challenged a series of orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of East Khasi Hills on the running of the church, pastoral care and the administration of the Holy Sacraments.

How the dispute began

Members of the Mawkhar congregation passed a resolution seeking to break away from the KJP Synod Sepngi, after which the KJP Synod Mihngi agreed to provide them pastoral care. That split the church into two rival camps.

The Deputy Commissioner then barred meetings in the church's schools, halls and premises and prohibited third-party interference in its management. A show-cause notice followed, and later orders told the KJP Synod Mihngi to stop administering sacraments and providing pastoral and ecclesiastical services to the congregation.

The petitioners argued that the orders had no legal basis and interfered with religious freedom guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The state said the steps were preventive and meant to keep public order between the factions.

What the court held

The court accepted that the district administration could not be blamed simply for noting the risk of a confrontation. But it said a dispute between two groups does not give the executive unlimited power over the internal affairs of a religious denomination.

According to the judgment, communications issued on May 8 and June 19, 2026, relied on an interpretation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India to decide whether ministers of one synod could serve the congregation. The court said such a decision was outside the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction.

Whether a particular minister is entitled to conduct religious rites, the court said, is for the denomination itself to decide under its own rules, unless there is specific material showing that the activity is likely to cause an imminent breach of public order.

Blanket ban on meetings

The court also found fault with the indefinite ban on meetings in church premises. It noted that an Executive Magistrate had already concluded on May 4, 2026, that the dispute was not fit for further proceedings under Sections 126 and 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Preventive orders, the court said, must have a rational link with the danger they are meant to address and must be proportionate. A general lockout of an institution because of an internal dispute could not be justified.

The bench added that the church's registration as a society under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, for handling property, banking and other secular matters, does not give the state authority over its religious functions.