State Can't Interpret Church Constitution To Decide Which Faction Has Religious Authority: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has held that the State, through Deputy Commissioner, cannot determine ecclesiastical jurisdiction or regulate religious functions by interpreting the internal Constitution of a religious denomination.

Justice H.S. Thangkhiew observed, “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 observation came in a writ petition filed by the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church, Shillong, and its Secretary, challenging several orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, concerning the internal administration of the Church, provision of pastoral care and administration of the Holy Sacraments.

The dispute arose after the KJP Synod Mihngi agreed to provide pastoral care to the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church, following a resolution passed by its members seeking disassociation from the KJP Synod Sepngi.

In view of the dispute between the two factions of the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church, the Deputy Commissioner issued directions prohibiting meetings in the Church's schools, halls and premises and disallowing third-party interference in its management and affairs. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued, followed by further orders directing the KJP Synod Mihngi to stop administering the sacraments and providing pastoral and ecclesiastical services.

The petitioners stated that the impugned orders had been passed without any authority of law and were in direct interference with the religious affairs of the Church, in violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

The State, on the other hand, maintained that the measures were preventive in nature and intended to preserve public order amid disputes between the rival factions.

The High Court, while examining the legality of the impugned orders, held that the dispute between the rival factions did not authorise the Deputy Commissioner to determine their competing ecclesiastical rights.

The Court observed that although the State was entitled to take measures for preserving public order, such powers could not be exercised to adjudicate religious or denominational rights.

It held, “Preventive jurisdiction, must remain directed towards the prevention of an actual or reasonably apprehended disturbance of public order and cannot be transformed into a mechanism for adjudication of private, civil, ecclesiastical or denominational rights.”

The Court noted that the District Administration could not be faulted merely for taking cognizance of the possibility of confrontation between the rival groups. However, the communications dated May 8 and June 19, 2026, proceeded upon an interpretation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India to determine whether ministers belonging to one Synod could provide pastoral care to the congregation.

The Court observed, “Such determination is not, in the considered opinion of this Court, within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner.”

The Court further held, “It cannot, however, conclusively determine which Synod possesses ecclesiastical jurisdiction merely, by relying upon the internal Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India.”

On the administration of religious rites and ceremonies, the Court observed that whether a particular minister was ecclesiastically entitled to administer such rites was a matter for the denomination to determine in accordance with its own Constitution.

It held that the Deputy Commissioner could not determine such entitlement merely by interpreting the PCI Constitution, particularly in the absence of a specific finding supported by cogent material demonstrating that the religious activity itself was likely to cause an imminent breach of public order.

The Court also examined the restrictions imposed upon meetings in the Church's schools, halls and premises. It noted that the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate had already concluded, by an order dated May 4, 2026, that the dispute was not fit for further proceedings under Sections 126/164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court observed, “Preventive orders must have a rational nexus with the apprehended danger and must be proportionate to the object sought to be achieved.”

It held that an indefinite and absolute prohibition on holding meetings could not be sustained merely because of an internal dispute between rival groups. The District Administration was required to adopt measures directed specifically towards preventing an actual disturbance of public order rather than imposing a general lockout of the institution.

The Court further clarified that registration of the Church as a society under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act for managing property, banking and other secular affairs did not confer executive authority upon the State to assume control over its religious or ecclesiastical functions.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, the Court observed, “The State cannot substitute its own determination for that of the religious denomination in matters which properly belong to the latter's religious affairs.”

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the show-cause notice and the two other orders while ruling that the Deputy Commissioner had exceeded the permissible limits of administrative intervention by determining ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

The Court also interfered with the communication dated May 8, 2026, and the directions contained in the minutes dated March 12, 2026, to the extent that they imposed blanket or indefinite restrictions upon the Church's internal administration and functioning without reference to any specific and demonstrable threat to public order.

However, the Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the validity of the resolution seeking disassociation from the KJP Synod Sepngi, the appointment or removal of pastors, the jurisdiction of either Synod, or the rival claims concerning management and control of the Church.

It further made clear that the District Administration and police authorities remained free to take lawful action in the event of any actual or imminent threat to public peace or commission of an offence.

The writ petition was partly allowed and disposed of.