Page 1 of 34

Serial No. 01

Supplementary List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 285 of 2026 Date of Hearing :17.08.2026

Date of Decision :15.09.2026

1.Mawkhar Presbyterian Church, Shillong

Having its registered office at Mission Compound, Block-1,

East Khasi Hills District, Shillong-793001, Meghalaya

Represented by its Secretary Tbn. Mr. Geraldton Pakma.

2. Tbn. Mr Geraldton Pakma,

S/o (L) Shri S. Shullai, aged about 60 years

R/o Sunny Hills, Block-1, East Khasi Hills District,

Shillong-793002, Meghalaya.

… Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. The State of Meghalaya represented by

The Chief Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya

2. The Deputy Commissioner,

East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, Meghalaya

3. The Joint Registrar of Societies,

East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, Meghalaya

4. The Superintendent of Police,

East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, Meghalaya

5. Tbn. Mr. Disting Roy Thangkhiew, Lum Sohra,

Lummawbah, Shillong, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya

6. Tbn. Mr. F.F. Ropmay, Madan Laban, Shillong,

East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya

7. Rev. Bidonbok Syiem,

Mission Compound, Block-2, Shillong

East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 2 of 34

8. The Presbyterian Church of India (PCI) represented by its

Moderator, Presbyterian Assembly House, Central Ward,

Shillong, Meghalaya. …. Respondent(s)

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. M. Allya, Adv.

Mr. B. Nongbet, Adv.

Mr. C. Sharma, Adv.

Ms. A. Rana, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with

Ms. Z.E Nongkynrih, GA (For R 1-4)

Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. R.K. Synrem, Adv.

Mr. S. Chanda, Adv. (For R 5-7)

Mr. L. Shongwan, Adv. (For R 8)

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No

Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No

in press:

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. The writ petitioner No 1, before this Court i.e. Mawkhar

Presbyterian Church, Shillong is a registered society under the Meghalaya

Societies Registration Act, and by this writ petition is praying for the

following reliefs: - 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 3 of 34

i) To quash and set aside the impugned order No. C&S. 5/2026/53 dated

19.06.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills;

and/or

ii) To quash and set aside the impugned order No. C&S. 5/2026/52

dated 19.06.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills

commanding the KJP Synod Mihngi to halt the administration of the

Holy Sacraments scheduled for 28.06.2026; and/or

iii) To quash and set aside the impugned order No. C&S. 5/2026/46

dated 18.06.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi

Hills; and/or

iv) To quash and set aside the coercive impugned Show Cause Notice

No. C&S. 5/2026/30 dated 13.05.2026 issued by the Deputy

Commissioner, East Khasi Hills threatening penal action against the

Executive Committee of the Petitioner Church and/or

v) To quash and set aside the Impugned Letter Memo No. C&S. 5.

2026/24-A dated 08.05.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East

Khasi Hills which unconditionally banned “external interference” to

prohibit ordained third-party ministers from rendering pastoral care;

and/or

vi) To quash and set aside the arbitrary executive lockout and ban on

holding meetings in the Church’s school, halls, and premises contained 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 4 of 34

in the Minutes of the Meeting Memo. No. C&S. 16/96/Pt. 26/120-A

dated 12.03.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills

and/or

vii) To restrain the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills and

Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills from interfering in the

internal ecclesiastical, spiritual, and administrative management of the

Mawkhar Presbyterian Church, and explicitly directing them not to

obstruct the Holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

2. The background facts are as follows: -

The Mawkhar Presbyterian Church (herein the Petitioner)

established in Shillong on 01.01.1871, is the historic “Mother Church” of the

region, serving a congregation of approximately 92,00 members. To facilitate

legal and administrative functions such as holding property title and managing

bank accounts the Church registered as a Society under the Meghalaya

Societies Registration Act on 22.01.2015, bearing Registration No. E.16/5 of

2015/5.

The conflict within the Church originated following the discovery

of a financial scandal on 24.06.2019, involving an unexplained deficit of

approximately Rs.2,86,59,490, which led to an exhaustive audit and

confirmed as a misappropriation of roughly Rs.4.65 crore. This led to the

filing of an FIR on 03.08.2019 against the Chowkidar for a fraud of Rs. 3.26 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 5 of 34

crore. A wider crisis erupted when the KJP Synod Sepngi pressured the

Pastor, Rev. M. Pyngrope, to sign a Bond Agreement and when the Church

Committee inquired if this would compromise the active criminal case, the

Synod Sepngi ignored the question and suspended the Pastor on 03.06.2025,

and eventually on 27.11.2025; the Pastor was stripped of his ordination. The

congregation of approximately 9,200 members viewed this as an organized

cover-up to protect implicated elders and voted overwhelmingly on

01.02.2026, to dissociate from the KJP Synod Sepngi.

While the Joint Registrar of Societies initially ruled on

10.02.2026, that the dispute over the Church’s internal amendments was an

internal affair, the Deputy Commissioner (DC) initiated a series of executive

interventions. On 12.03.2026, the DC banned all meetings inside Church

schools, halls, and premises until the dispute was resolved, effectively

paralyzing the institution’s secular and educational management.

On 08.05.2026, the DC issued a directive prohibiting “external

interference” by third-party ministers. This effectively barred ordained

ministers from the KJP Synod Mihngi from administering essential religious

rites such as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. On 19.06.2026, the DC issued

orders (C&S.5/2026/52 and C&S.5/2026/53) ordering the KJP Synod Mihngi

to halt pastoral care. In these orders, the DC cited and interpreted internal 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 6 of 34

clauses of the PCI Constitution to dictate religious jurisdiction, acting as an

“Ecclesiastical Court”.

The Petitioners filed the instant Writ Petition to quash these

orders, arguing that the District Administration has, firstly, violated essential

religious practices and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 25, and 26(d) of

the Constitution of India.

3. The issues that have arisen in the present dispute are as follows: -

(i) whether the DC’s orders violate the fundamental rights to free

practice of religion and management of religious affairs under

Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution

(ii) whether the DC overstepped civil authority by interpreting

the clauses of the Constitution of Presbyterian Church of India

to determine which Synod has jurisdiction over the petitioner

Church

(iii) whether the DC erred by treating the Church (a religious

body) as identical to a Registered Society

(iv) whether the absolute ban on holding meetings inside Church

schools, Halls and premises described by the petitioner as an

illegal executive lockout is a valid exercise of administrative

power or infringement on the right to manage property under

Article 26 (d). 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 7 of 34

4. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Allya,

learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the writ petitioner is

mainly assailing orders dated 13.05.2026 and 19.06.2026, passed by the

respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner) and an order of the same date

19.06.2026, addressed to the petitioner No. 2. (Shri J. Pakma, Secretary,

Mawkhar Presbyterian Church), which he contends are ex facie illegal, as the

same were passed without any authority of law. It is argued that any

interference by the respondent No. 2, destroys the guaranteed right to religious

freedom as given under Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution. The learned

Senior counsel has then submitted that there is a marked difference in the

implication of two clauses namely; Article 26(b) and Article 26(d), inasmuch

as, Article 26(b) deals with the right of management given to a religious body

which is a guaranteed fundamental right which no legislation can take away.

Learned Senior counsel submits that matters of religion, are entirely outside

the pale of law and as such, religious denominations enjoy complete

autonomy as to what rites and ceremony are essential.

5. The respondent No. 2 he submits, has attempted to venture into

the interpretation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India,

which is not within his domain, by issuing the Show Cause Notice dated

13.05.2026, to the petitioner No. 2, directing him to show cause as to why

proceedings under the relevant sections of law be not drawn up against the 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 8 of 34

Executive Committee of the petitioner Church, that no third party interference

into the management and affairs of the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church be

allowed, till the completion of the enquiry by the Joint Registrar Society. This

action he asserts, has violated Article 26(b) of the Constitution of India and

the impugned orders stemming therefrom, have been passed in excess of

jurisdiction as there is no provision in the statute to pass such orders. It is

strenuously emphasized by the learned Senior counsel that the respondent No.

2, derives his power only when there is a disruption of public order, morality

and health, and these ingredients are totally absent in the instant case and that,

even if there be disagreements between two groups in the Church, the State

would not enter into such an arena in view of Articles 25 & 26. The impugned

orders he submits, have not been passed on account of any public disruption

and as such, are non est in law and deserve to be set aside.

6. The learned Senior counsel has then referred to order dated

19.06.2026, (Page 118 to the writ petition) and submits that the observations

of the respondent No. 2, are untenable, as the facts stated therein, can only be

assessed by a civil court by way of evidence, and the order does not reflect

that there was any disruption of public order. Attention of this Court, has also

been drawn to Annexure-6 to the writ petition which are the Minutes of a

meeting held on 12.03.2026, wherein he submits that the respondent No. 2

has categorically stated that meeting was being held to discuss matters 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 9 of 34

between the two factions of the members of the Mawkhar Presbyterian

Church, which may lead to a breakdown of law and order. In this context,

reference has been made to an order dated 04.05.2026 passed in C.R. Case

No. 14 (A) 2026 under Section 126/164 BNSS, and submits that the Executive

Magistrate in the instant dispute had noted that the matter was not a fit case

for further proceedings under Sections 126/164 BNSS, 2023 and gave liberty

to the parties to approach competent forum for adjudication and the said case

was closed and disposed of.

7. It is further submitted that the enquiry before the Registrar of

Societies, pertains only to registration under the Meghalaya Registration of

Societies Act, 1983 and the said enquiry in no manner can confer jurisdiction

upon the respondent No. 2, to regulate and determine religious and

ecclesiastical affairs. The invitation extended to the KJP Synod Mihngi he

contends, has been misconceived as a third-party interference, inasmuch as,

the same was on the basis of a decision taken by the majority at the General

meeting held on 01.02.2026, and that providing pastoral care cannot be

determined by civil administration. It has also been submitted that Chapter-

II, Clause (D) (a) (iii) of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India

empowers the Synod’s Executive Committee to cater to the spiritual needs of

the Christian population within its jurisdiction, including the needs of the

Christians from other Synods and Church traditions. 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 10 of 34

8. It is lastly submitted that the impugned orders and the consequential

Show Cause Notice issued by the respondent No. 2, are wholly without

jurisdiction, having been passed without any statutory authority and in direct

interference and in violation of Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India.

9 The learned Senior counsel has cited the following decisions in

support of his case namely;

i) Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madraw v. Sri

Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Srhi Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954

SC 282.

ii) Ratilal Panachand v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388

iii) Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New

Delhi (1978) 1 SCC 405

iv) Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951

SCC 1088

v) Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan,

(2003) 7 SCC 546

vi) Union of India v. Tulsimar Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398

vii) Manish S. Pardasani v. Inspector, State Excise, (2019) 2 SCC

660

viii) Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995

Supp (4) SCC 286

ix) Tbn. Phrangsngi Mynsong v. Tbn. G. Thwingland Lyngdoh,

2021 SCC OnLine Megh 219

x) Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1

2026:MLHC:1030

Page 11 of 34

xi) Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda

Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770

10. On behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. N.D. Chullai,

learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, learned GA has firstly

submitted that the writ petition has been filed by one Shri G. Pakma who

claims to be the Secretary of the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church, whereas

another person namely; Shri D.R. Thangkhiew also claims to be the Secretary

of the same Church, and as such it is unclear as to who is the Secretary. It is

further submitted that the matter pertains to the internal affairs of the Church

and the matter cannot be determined by a writ court, and as such on both these

counts, the writ petition is not maintainable.

11. The learned AAG has then submitted that the Presbyterian Church

of India vide letter dated 16.06.2026, has also clarified that a Local Church

under the Synod cannot disassociate from its current Synod to seek affiliation

with another based on a resolution passed by its members, and that the same

can only be effected by submitting an application and receiving the approval

by the concerned authority. It is further submitted that as there were

apprehensions of interference and disruptions of regular functioning of the

Church and upon the District Administration being approached by the

petitioners and the respondents Nos. 5 to 7, the State respondents adopted

preventive measures to ensure maintenance of peace and order. The decisions 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 12 of 34

arrived at, at the meeting held on 12.03.2026, he submits was in the presence

of the two factions of the Church and cannot constitute to be an interference

by the District Administration, and though it did not want to interfere with the

internal affairs of the Church, due to the discord, filing of FIRs and counter

FIRs, was compelled to issue orders to prevent any escalation between the

two factions. Thereafter he submits, as other complaints had been filed by the

respondent No. 2, on 08.05.2026, with regard to the apprehension of

interference and transfer of Church property to a third party, further orders

were necessitated that only normal and funeral service would be allowed to

be carried out by the groups and that no external interference would be

allowed.

12. However, he submits, as there was third party involvement in

view of a letter dated 12.05.2026, of the KJP Synod Mihngi which had agreed

to provide pastoral care, the Show Cause Notice dated 13.05.2026, was then

issued for violating the order of the respondent No. 2. All the actions of the

District Administration he submits were interim measures to ensure that there

was no breach of peace pending resolution of the discord between the parties,

who are both bound by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India

before whom they should have approached for redressal of their grievances.

The action of the respondent No. 2 he submits in conclusion, cannot be said, 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 13 of 34

or be held as any interference by the District Administration in the conduct of

the religious affairs of the Church.

13. Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.K. Synrem,

learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 5 to 7, has at the outset submitted

that the petitioner No. 2, Shri G. Pakma has no locus standi to file the writ

petition as he is no longer a Church elder or an office bearer and thus, has no

authority to represent and act on behalf the Church in any manner or activity.

The petitioner he submits, has failed to establish any enforceable fundamental

or legal right, which calls for interference under Article 226 of the

Constitution and further, has failed to demonstrate that their Church

Committee has the undisputed authority to represent the Mawkhar

Presbyterian Church. The orders of the Deputy Commissioner he submits,

was not to determine theological and ecclesiastical rights of either faction but

was purely administrative and preventive, and were based on the request of

the petitioner on complaints received. The meeting in the DC’s office

chamber he submits, was with the objective to prevent any untoward incident

and to preserve the peace, and the clarification sought by the respondent No.

2, from the Presbyterian Church of India was not violative of Articles 25 &

26, but based upon the material provided by the PCI vide its response dated

16.06.2026. The impugned orders therefore he submits, were simply for the 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 14 of 34

maintenance of public order and peace and were never meant to dictate the

doctrine of the Church, religious beliefs or how worship should be conducted.

14. The petitioners’ intentions he contends, in registering the Society

was to hold title to property, operate bank accounts, manage education assets

and that the Executive Committee of the petitioners in this regard, had been

constituted without compliance with the PCI and without the recognition of

the competent Higher Church Courts. It is also submitted that the petitioners

and its committee are led by dis-ordained pastors, who cannot perform any

religious functions and that the right conferred by Article 25 of the

Constitution, is only when the right to receive is in question and not the right

to give, and that the test of morality requires that to hold pastoral services and

other religious functions, the same is to be administered by a person

recognized and ordained by the PCI.

15. The learned Senior has then touched upon the facets of the

Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India and its provisions which he

submits has an in-built mechanism to address the issues of the petitioners

without invoking writ jurisdiction i.e. the Church Courts, which includes the

Local Church, District/Pastorate, Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly.

The issue being an internal matter he submits, Article 226 cannot be invoked

and that moreover, the petitioners have never approached the Sub-Pastoral

Committee with their grievances, which can be settled by the PCI through its 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 15 of 34

exhaustive internal mechanism. It is also contended that the Mawkhar

Presbyterian Church being affiliated to KJP Synod Sepngi without following

due procedure, a different Synod cannot provide pastoral and ecclesiastical

care outside its jurisdiction and the same would only create a confrontation

between two Synods. In rounding up his arguments, the learned Senior

counsel has again reiterated the existence of alternate remedy and has

emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into a forum for

declaring which of the rival factions is the lawful governing body and that the

questions raised by the petitioners and the relief sought, cannot be dealt with

in a writ proceeding.

16. On behalf of the respondent No. 8, Mr. L. Shongwan, learned

counsel has emphasized that the Khasi Jaintia Presbyterian Synod Sepngi

(KJPSS) holds the exclusive and final authority regarding the appointment,

ordination and removal of pastors. He submits that a Local Church lacks the

power to unilaterally disassociate from its Synod simply by passing a

resolution amongst its members, but that any change in affiliation should

strictly adhere to a sequential hierarchy of ecclesial procedures, which

requires a written request to be processed through the District/Pastorate,

sanctioned by the Presbytery and finally decided by the Synod. The

petitioners he submits failed to adhere to these mandatory ecclesiastical

procedures, and therefore the communication dated 04.02.2026, could not be 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 16 of 34

considered as adherence to procedure because it attempted to bypass the

respective Synods and approached the Apex authority directly, which the

Constitution of the PCI does not permit. The learned counsel has outlined the

ecclesial procedure that must be followed and has placed several clauses of

the PCI Constitution to elaborate on this aspect, and submits that any attempt

to bypass these steps is considered as a violation of ‘intra-fate conciliation’

and the mandatory provisions of the PCI Constitution.

17. The learned counsel then detailed the provisions of the PCI

Constitution that provides for a dispute redressal mechanism, which he

submits is through a system of Church Courts, and that any internal dispute

that cannot be amicably resolved at the Local Church Committee, must be

referred to the higher Church Courts. It is further submitted that a Synod

cannot extend its powers beyond its jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the same is

determined by an association of churches belonging to specific Districts and

Presbyteries associated to a particular Synod and not on geographical

boundaries. The KJP Synod Mihngi therefore, he submits by seeking to

provide Pastoral services without following due procedure constitutes an

impermissible external interference into the jurisdiction of Synod Sepngi,

which he further contends would set a bad precedent to thousands of other

Churches within the PCI, and would render the provisions of the PCI

Constitution redundant. 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 17 of 34

18. With regard to the orders of the respondent No. 2 (Deputy

Commissioner), the learned counsel submits that the communication dated

10.06.2026, due to the conflicting claims by the respective factions and the

potential implications for maintenance of public order was necessary in order

to obtain formal clarification from the respondent No. 8, which is the highest

authority under the Presbyterian Church of India. It is further submitted that

the events that led to the issuance of the letter dated 19.06.2026, are to be read

together with the Minutes of the meeting dated 12.03.2026, letters dated

08.05.2026, 12.05.2026 and 10.06.2026, which were with the objective to

ensure maintenance of public tranquility and public order. Learned counsel

with regard to the judgment placed by the petitioner i.e. Mohinder Singh Gill

(supra) has contended that the same would have no application, inasmuch as,

the cited judgment pertains to the correction of flawed orders passed by the

authorities by way of an affidavit, whereas in the instant case, the respondent

No. 2 had not supplemented the new orders with new reasons.

19. In closing his arguments, the learned counsel has submitted that

the stand of the petitioners that the present dispute, specifically the impugned

preventive orders by the respondent No. 2, be tried by a Civil Court is legally

unsustainable, inasmuch as, the PCI Constitution bars ordained Ministers and

ordained Elders from approaching a Civil Court to challenge decisions

rendered by any Church Court. Further he contends setting aside or quashing 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 18 of 34

the impugned letters and orders will not resolve the underlying ecclesiastical

dispute and in fact, will only escalate the conflict between two Synods as the

orders of the Deputy Commissioner are inextricably linked to, and a direct

consequence of the internal ecclesiastical dispute of the Church. The

contention that the impugned orders are violative of Articles 25 & 26, he

submits, are fundamentally flawed and untenable and that the right under

Article 25, is not absolute and is subject to public order and morality. The

orders of the Deputy Commissioner therefore, he submits owing to the

disputes between the two factions, being preventive intervention by the

respondents is valid and warranted, and he prays that the writ petition be

dismissed.

21. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties and having carefully considered the pleadings, materials placed on

record and the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the

controversy before this Court is required to be examined within a limited

constitutional and administrative framework. This Court is fully alive to the

fact that the instant dispute stems from the happenings in the Mawkhar

Presbyterian Church, as observed hereinbefore, but at this stage itself, would

observe that though many issues have been raised which touches upon the

intra Church and inter Synod relations of the Presbyterian Church, these

issues will not be deliberated or adjudicated upon, being ecclesiastical matters 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 19 of 34

within the domain of the Presbyterian Church’s organization and

management.

This Court it is reiterated, is not called upon in the present writ

proceedings to determine which faction of the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church

is ecclesiastically entitled to govern the Church, whether the decision dated

01.02.2026, validly effected a disassociation from the KJP Synod Sepngi, or

whether the KJP Synod Mihngi has, under the Constitution of the Presbyterian

Church of India, jurisdiction to extend pastoral care to the congregation of the

petitioner Church. These are matters falling essentially within the internal

ecclesiastical structure and dispute-resolution mechanism of the Presbyterian

Church of India. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution, cannot assume the role of an ecclesiastical tribunal or pronounce

upon theological and denominational questions, which are to be determined

by the competent authorities within the religious denomination.

23. The limited question which therefore arises for consideration is

whether the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, in exercise of his

administrative and preventive powers, was competent to issue the impugned

communications and orders in the form and manner, in which they have been

issued. It is well settled that the State is entitled, and indeed duty-bound, to

take appropriate measures for preservation of public order and prevention of

apprehended breach of peace, and that the fundamental rights guaranteed 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 20 of 34

under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, are not absolute and are

expressly subject to considerations of public order, morality and health.

However, 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. 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.

24. In the present case, the materials placed before this Court

undoubtedly demonstrates the existence of serious discord between the rival

groups claiming authority over the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church. There have

been complaints, counter-complaints and criminal proceedings, and the

District Administration cannot be faulted merely for having taken cognizance

of the possibility of confrontation and for attempting to prevent any breach of

peace.

The meeting convened on 12.03.2026, and the initial preventive

measures, though not traceable to any particular provision of the BNSS, to the

extent that they were genuinely directed towards maintaining public

tranquillity, cannot therefore be said to be wholly without jurisdiction merely

because the dispute originated in an internal ecclesiastical controversy. 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 21 of 34

25. This position, however, changes when the administrative authority

proceeds beyond prevention of breach of peace and enters into the

determination of competing ecclesiastical rights. The impugned

communications, particularly those dated 08.05.2026 and 19.06.2026, appear

to proceed upon an interpretation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian

Church of India for the purpose of determining whether ministers belonging

to one Synod could provide pastoral care to the congregation of the petitioner

Church. Such determination is not, in the considered opinion of this Court,

within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner. The District

Administration may certainly prevent a particular person, or group from

committing an act which is independently prohibited by law, or which poses

a demonstrable and immediate threat to public order. It cannot, however,

conclusively determine which Synod possesses ecclesiastical jurisdiction

merely, by relying upon the internal Constitution of the Presbyterian Church

of India.

For the sake of convenience, the main impugned orders and

communications particularly, Communication/Memo dated 08.05.2026,

Show Cause Notice No. C&S.5/2026/30 dated 13.05.2026, the impugned

orders No. C&S.5/2026/53 dated 19.06.2026 and order No. C&S.5/2026/52

dated 19.06.2026, are reproduced herein below: -

2026:MLHC:1030

Page 22 of 34

GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALYA

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EAST KHASI HILLS

DISTRICT, SHILLONG

Memo No. C&S.5/2026/24 Dated Shillong, the 8

th

May, 2026

To,

1. Shri. B. Syiem (8974761382)

2. Shri. D.R. Thangkhiew

3. Shri. Mc Donald Pyngrope (8732059833)

4. Shri. Gerakton Pakma (8837419365)

Subject: Matter relating to Mawkhar Presbyterian Church-Reg

Reference: This Office Letter Memo No. C&S.16/96/Pt.26/120-A Dated 12.03.2026

Sir,

With reference to the subject cited above and in continuation to the minutes of the meeting

held on 12.03.2026 referred above in the office chamber of the undersigned, I am to

reiterate that only normal church service and funeral service is allowed to be conducted by

both the groups. However, no other external interference in the management and affairs of

the church by any third party other than the two groups is allowed till completion of the

enquiry by the Joint Registrar of Societies, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in connection

with the renewal of societies.

This is for your information and compliance.

Yours faithfully,

SD/-

Deputy Commissioner

East Khasi Hills District, Shillong

Memo No. C&S.5/2026/24-A Dated Shillong, the 8

th

May, 2026

Copy to:

1. The Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong for favour of

information and necessary action.

2. The Sector Magistrate i/c Lumdiengiri for kind information and necessary

action.

SD/-

Deputy Commissioner

East Khasi Hills District, Shillong 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 23 of 34

GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EAST KHASI HILLS

DISTRICT::SHILLONG::

No.C&S.5/2026/30

To, Dated Shillong, the 13

th

May, 2026

Shri. Geraldton Pakma (8837419365)

Secretary, Mawkhar Prebyterian Church

Subject: SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

Reference: No.MPC/GENL/2026/116 Dated 9.05.2026

No.MPC/GENL/2026/119 Dated 11.05.2026

No.MPC/GENL/2026/120 Dated 12.05.2026

Whereas, the undersigned vide Letter No.C&S.5/2026/24 Dated 8.5.2026, had

categorically stated that no external interference in the management of affairs of the

Mawkhar Presbyterian Church by anv third party other than the two dissenting groups of

the Church is allowed till completion of the Inquiry by the Joint Registrar of Societies,

East Khasi Hills District, Shillong.

However, a complaint vide Letter No.MPC/GENL/2026/82 Dated 12.52026 was

received, that as per your request. the Khasi Jaintia Presbyterian Svnod Mihngi under the

chairmanship of the Moderator, the Secretary of the Synod Mihngi had conducted the

Executive Committee of the Synod Mihngi on 12.5.2026 wherein it was reportedly

accepted that the KJP Symd Mihngi has decided to give ‘Pastoral Care’ to the Mawkhar

Presbyterian Church.

In view of the above, you are hereby directed to Show Cause as to why proceedings

under relevant sections of the law should not be drawn up against the Executive Committee

of the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church for violation of the above order and disobeying the

orders of the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong.

Your reply should reach the undersigned latest by 15

th

May, 2026.

Further, you are directed to ensure that no third party interference in the

management of affairs of the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church is allowed till completion of

the Inquiry by the Joint Registrar of Societies, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong.

Sd/-

Deputy Commissioner,

East Khasi Hills District.

Shillong.

2026:MLHC:1030

Page 24 of 34

Dated Shillong, the 13

th

May, 2026

Memo No.C&S.5/2026/30-A

Copy to:

1. Shri. D.R. Thangkhiew for information and necessary action.

2. Shri. Ebormi Nongpluh, Secretary, KJP Synod Mihngi for information and

necessary action.

Sd/-

Deputy Commissioner

East Khasi Hills District,

Shillong

***************

GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER::EAST KHASI HILLS DISTRICT,

SHILLONG

No.C&S.5/2026/53 Dated: Shillong, the 19

th

June, 2026

To,

Shri G. Pakma,

Secretary,

Mawkhar Presbyterian Church

Mission Compound Block-I, Shillong.

Sub: Matters relating to Mawkhar Presbyterian Church- reg

Ref. No. (i) MPC/GENL/2026/125 dated 15th May, 2026

(ii) MPC/GENL/2026/149 dated Shillong the 4th June, 2026

Sir,

With reference to your letters referred above, 1 am to state that your contention that

providing pastoral care by the Synod Mihngi does not amount to external interference in

the affairs of the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church is not tenable since the Presbyterian

Church of India (PCI) has clarified that “The provision of pastoral services by another

Synod would amount to the de-facto ecclesiastical recognition of that congregation as

falling under its jurisdiction, even though it completely lacks legal validity.”

The Presbyterian Church of India (PCI) has further clarified that “A local church

under a Synod cannot dissociate from its current Synod to seek affiliation with another

based solely on a resolution passed by its communicant members and that it is mandatory

for a local church to seek prior approval or sanction for a change of affiliation and/ or

release from the District/ Pastorates, Presbytery and Synod to which it belongs in

accordance with Article B Clause 1 of the Constitution of PCI.”

PRIORITY 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 25 of 34

In view of the above, you are hereby directed to take up the matter of pastoral care

and ecclesiastical services with the Competent Authority as provided under Chapter II,

Article C, Clause 7 and 12(c) of the constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India.

This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action.

Yours faithfully,

Sd /-

Deputy Commissioner

East Khasi Hillls District,

Shillong

Dated: Shillong, the 19

th

June, 2026

Memo No.C&S.5/2026/53-A

Copy to:

1. The Moderator, Presbyterian Church of India (PCI), Presbyterian Assembly

House, Central Ward, Shillong, Meghalaya for favour of kind information and

necessary action.

2. The Senior Executive Secretary, KJP Synod Sepngi for favour of kind

information and necessary action.

3. Shri. Ebormi Nongpluh, Secretary, KJP Synod Mihngi for favour of kind

information and necessary action

4. Shri B. Syiem, Balang Presbyterian Mawkhar, Hast Khasi Hills District,

Shillong.

Sd/-

Deputy Commissioner

East Khasi Hills District, Shillong

GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER:: EAST KHASI HILLS

DISTRICT, SHILLONG

No.C&S.5/2026/52 Dated: Shillong, the 19

th

June, 2026

To,

Shri. Ebormi Nongpluh,

Secretary.

KJP Synod Mihngi.

Sub: Matters relating to Mawkhar Presbyterian Church- reg

PRIORITY 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 26 of 34

Sir.

Whereas this office has received a copy of the letter No. KJPSM/SUBCOM/

Mawkhar/2026/05 dated 17

th

June, 2026 issued by Rev.C. S. Suchiang, Convener, Sub

Committee KJP Synod Mihngi wherein it was stated that the Executive Committee of the

KIP Synod Mihngi in its Executive Committee held on 12

th

May, 2026 has decided to assist

the Mawkhar Presbyterian church in conducting the sacrament on the 28

th

June. 2026 and

nominated 33 members to administer the said sacrament.

Whereas such action is in violation of the order of the undersigned vide No.

C&S.5/2026/30 dated 13

th

May, 2026 wherein it was clearly directed that no third party

interference in the management of the affairs of the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church is

allowed till completion of the inquiry by the Joint Registrars of Societies, East Khasi Hills

District Shillong.

As per the communication received from the Moderator, Presbyterian Church of

India (PCI). “No. Synod has the authority to validly provide pastoral care or ministerial

services to a church that falls outside its defined geographical and administrative

jurisdiction. The Specific duties of the Synod are explicitly laid down in Chapter 2, Article

D, Clause 7 of the Constitution of the PCI”.

“The provision of pastoral services by another Synod would amount to the de-facto

ecclesiastical recognition of that congregation as falling under its jurisdiction, and lacks

legal validity”.

Regarding who can provide pastoral care and administer sacraments to the

communicant members, the PCI has clarified that “Pending disposal or any transfer or

affiliation issue, the sole authority responsible for providing pastoral care and

administering sacraments to communicant members is the Sub-pastoral Committee of the

Presbytery as mandated in Chapter II. Article C, Clause 12(c) of the Constitution of the

PCI.”

In view of the above, you are requested to stop the action of administering the

sacrament and providing pastoral and ecclesiastical services to the Mawkhar Presbyterian

Church and withdraw the letter dated 17

th

June, 2026 as this will disturb the Status Quo

and tantamount to interference by third party.

This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action.

Yours faithfully,

Sd /-

Deputy Commissioner

East Khasi Hillls District,

Shillong

2026:MLHC:1030

Page 27 of 34

Memo No.C&S.5/2026/52-A Dated: Shilong the 19

th

June, 2026

Copy to:

1. The Moderator, Presbyterian Church of India (PCI), Presbyterian Assembly House,

Central Ward, Shillong, Meghalaya for favour of kind information and necessary

action.

2. The Senior Executive Scerclary, KJP Synod Sepngi for favour of kind information

and necessary action.

Sd/-

Deputy Commissioner

East Khasi Hills District, Shillong

26. The distinction between the two spheres is fundamental. The State

may regulate conduct where such regulation is sanctioned by law and is

necessary for the maintenance of public order. It cannot, under the guise of

such regulation, decide questions concerning the internal administration of a

religious denomination, the validity of ecclesiastical appointments, the

authority of ordained ministers, the jurisdiction of one Synod over another, or

the validity of an internal ecclesiastical decision. Such questions must be left

to the competent forum in accordance with the governing Constitution and

rules of the denomination, subject always to the jurisdiction of the appropriate

civil or constitutional courts where a legally enforceable right is otherwise

involved.

3. Shri. Macdonald Pyngrope, Mawkhar

Presbyterian Church, East Khasi Hills District.

Shillong.

4. Shri B. Syiem, Balang Presbyterian

Mawkhar, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong.

For favour of kind

information and necessary

action with a direction to take

up the matter of pastoral care

and ecclesiastical services with

the Competent Authority as

provided under Chapter I1,

Article C, Clause 7 and 12(c)

of the constitution of the

Presbyterian Church of India. 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 28 of 34

27. The respondents have relied upon the existence of the internal

Church Courts and the alternative mechanism provided under the Constitution

of the Presbyterian Church of India. This Court finds substance in the

submission that the underlying ecclesiastical dispute, ought ordinarily to be

addressed through the mechanism created by the denomination itself but

however, the existence of such an internal mechanism does not automatically

validate an otherwise unlawful exercise of executive power by a statutory

authority.

28. It is also to be noted that the registration of the petitioner Church

as a society under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, does not by

itself, convert every internal matter of the Church into a matter falling within

the regulatory jurisdiction of the District Administration. It is also noteworthy

to observe that, the fact that the Church has registered itself as a society for

the purposes of management of property, banking and other secular affairs,

does not vest the State respondents, with any executive authority to assume

control over its religious or ecclesiastical functions. On this aspect, it may be

further observed that property disputes, questions concerning possession,

title, misappropriation, criminal offences or other secular matters, remain

subject to ordinary law and may be dealt with by the competent statutory or

other judicial forums in accordance with law. 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 29 of 34

29. It is relevant at this juncture to appreciate that the impugned

directions prohibiting ordained ministers from providing pastoral care and the

consequential direction requiring the KJP Synod Mihngi to halt the

administration of the Holy Sacraments require particular consideration. The

administration of religious rites and ceremonies lies at the heart of the

religious practice of the denomination and whether a particular minister is

ecclesiastically entitled to administer such rites, may be a matter for the

denomination to determine in accordance with its own Constitution. The

Deputy Commissioner, therefore, cannot in the opinion of this Court,

determine such entitlement merely by interpreting the PCI Constitution,

especially in the absence of a specific finding supported by cogent material

demonstrating that the particular religious activity itself, was likely to cause

an imminent breach of public order.

30. This Court also notes that in matters of the apprehension of the

breach of peace or public order, it must be borne in mind that preventive

orders must have a rational nexus with the apprehended danger and must be

proportionate to the object sought to be achieved. In this context, it is relevant

to mention that this aspect was already dealt with by the jurisdictional

Executive Magistrate wherein, with regard to the dispute, he had concluded

by order dated 04.05.2026, that the matter was not fit for further proceedings

under Sections 126/164 BNSS, leaving the parties to approach the competent 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 30 of 34

forum. Therefore, a blanket prohibition affecting the ordinary secular and

administrative functioning of the petitioner society, without adequate material

demonstrating continuing necessity, would amount to an excessive exercise

of executive power. As such, with regard to the blanket prohibition upon

holding meetings in the Church's schools, halls and premises, this Court finds

that an indefinite and absolute prohibition, cannot be sustained merely

because there exists an internal dispute between rival groups. The District

Administration is therefore required, if necessary, to adopt measures which

are specific only to the prevention of actual disturbance of public order, rather

than impose a general lockout of the institution.

31. Though constitutional protection is guaranteed under Articles 25

and 26, the same however, does not confer immunity from lawful preventive

action. Thus, it must also be understood, that nothing contained in this

judgment shall prevent the District Administration, or the police authorities

from taking such action as may be permissible in law in the event of any actual

or imminent threat to public peace, violence, trespass, intimidation,

destruction of property or other cognizable offence. Any such action shall,

however, be directed against the unlawful conduct complained of and shall

not amount to an adjudication of the competing ecclesiastical claims of the

parties. 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 31 of 34

32. This Court has also noted the submissions on locus, that is the

petitioner No. 2's status as Secretary, which is disputed by the rival faction.

However, such dispute, being itself part of the controversy, this question

cannot be conclusively determined in the present writ petition, inasmuch as,

for the limited purpose of examining the legality of the impugned

administrative orders, this Court need not pronounce upon which of the rival

office-bearers is legally entitled to represent the Church. Such determination

may be made by the competent forum in accordance with law.

33. The reliance placed by the petitioners upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments,

Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (supra) is

relevant to the extent that the Constitution protects the autonomy of a religious

denomination in matters which fall within the sphere of religion, while

recognising the power of the State to regulate secular activities associated

with religious institutions in accordance with law. Thus, there can be no other

view, or quarrel with the principle emerging from the constitutional scheme,

that the State cannot substitute its own determination for that of the religious

denomination in matters which properly belong to the latter's religious affairs.

This Court though noting the other citations supplied by the Petitioner’s

counsel, however, in view of the findings rendered hereinabove, it is not

deemed necessary to elaborate or discuss the same. 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 32 of 34

34. As such, as per the discussions made hereinabove, and looking

into the totality of the matter, this Court is therefore of the view that the

Deputy Commissioner exceeded the permissible limits of administrative

intervention, insofar as, the impugned orders seek to determine, or regulate

ecclesiastical jurisdiction and religious functions on the basis of an

interpretation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India, and

therefore the impugned orders cannot be sustained to that extent.

35. Accordingly, the Show Cause Notice No. C&S.5/2026/30 dated

13.05.2026, the impugned order No. C&S.5/2026/53 dated 19.06.2026 and

order No. C&S.5/2026/52 dated 19.06.2026, which are essentially a

determination by the Deputy Commissioner regarding ecclesiastical

jurisdiction, are hereby quashed and set aside.

36. The communication/memo dated 08.05.2026 and the directions

contained in the Minutes dated 12.03.2026, are also interfered with to the

extent that they impose a blanket, or indefinite prohibition upon the internal

administration and functioning of the Church without reference to any

specific and demonstrable threat to public order.

37. This Court further makes it clear that it has expressed no opinion

whatsoever on:

(a) the validity of the resolution dated 01.02.2026 seeking

disassociation from the KJP Synod Sepngi; 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 33 of 34

(b) the validity of the appointment or removal of any pastor or office

bearer;

(c) the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of KJP Synod Sepngi, or KJP Synod

Mihngi;

(d) the validity of any decision taken by the Presbyterian Church of

India or any of its Church Courts; or

(e) the rival claims of the parties concerning management, possession

or control of the Mawkhar Presbyterian Church.

All such questions are left open to be determined by the competent

forum in accordance with law.

38. As the parties are at a discord, they are expected to maintain

peace and tranquillity and to restrain from taking the law into their own

hands, or to forcibly dispossess, obstruct, intimidate or interfere with the

lawful activities of the other. In the event of any specific act constituting an

offence, or threatening public order, the competent authorities shall be at

liberty to act in accordance with law.

39. The parties are at liberty to pursue their respective remedies

before the competent ecclesiastical, civil or statutory forums in accordance

with law, and nothing contained in this judgment shall prejudice such

proceedings. 2026:MLHC:1030

Page 34 of 34

40. Accordingly in view of the above, and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands partly allowed in the

aforesaid terms, and is disposed of.

JUDGE

Meghalaya

15.09.2026

“V. Lyndem- AR-PS” 2026:MLHC:1030