SHILLONG, Sept 16: The Meghalaya High Court has held that district authorities cannot assume the role of an ecclesiastical tribunal to settle internal disputes within a church, while quashing orders that restricted pastoral care and religious services at Mawkhar Presbyterian Church in Shillong.
Justice H S Thangkhiew, hearing a writ petition filed by the church, said the administration could take preventive measures to maintain public order but could not determine competing ecclesiastical rights or decide which Presbyterian synod had jurisdiction over the church.
The dispute dates back to 2019, when an unexplained deficit of around Rs 2.86 crore was detected. A subsequent audit reportedly found alleged misappropriation of about Rs 4.65 crore. An FIR was registered on August 3, 2019, over an alleged fraud involving Rs 3.26 crore, according to the judgment.
The dispute later involved the suspension and removal of pastor Reverend M Pyngrope and the church’s affiliation with the Khasi Jaintia Presbyterian Synod Sepngi. On February 1, 2026, the congregation passed a resolution seeking to dissociate itself from the synod, leading to competing claims over the church’s administration and pastoral care by the KJP Synod Mihngi.
Amid complaints, counter-complaints and criminal proceedings, the East Khasi Hills district administration issued directions restricting activities at the church and its associated premises. On June 19, the Deputy Commissioner directed the KJP Synod Mihngi to stop providing pastoral care and administering sacraments at the church, relying on clarifications concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction by making such a determination. It said the administration could not decide which synod possessed ecclesiastical authority by relying on the internal Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India.
The court quashed the May 13 show-cause notice and two June 19 orders, holding that they sought to determine or regulate ecclesiastical jurisdiction and religious functions. It also set aside the March 12 directions and a May 8 communication to the extent that they imposed a blanket or indefinite restriction on the church’s internal administration and functioning.
However, the court clarified that it was not deciding the validity of the February 1 resolution, the appointment or removal of pastors or office bearers, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction claimed by either synod, or rival claims over the church’s management and control.
The court said authorities could still take lawful action in cases involving an actual or imminent threat to public peace, including violence, trespass, intimidation, destruction of property or other cognisable offences. The rival parties were also left free to pursue their claims before competent ecclesiastical, civil or statutory forums.
The writ petition was accordingly partly allowed and disposed of.
