SHILLONG — The Meghalaya High Court has drawn a boundary between maintaining public order and deciding internal church authority, quashing administrative restrictions on pastoral care and the administration of Holy Sacraments at Mawkhar Presbyterian Church.
Justice Hamarsan Singh Thangkhiew partly allowed the petition filed by Mawkhar Presbyterian Church and its secretary, Tbn. Geraldton Pakma, but left the underlying contest over the church’s internal authority unresolved.
The court set aside the May 13 show-cause notice and June 19 directions that had prevented the KJP Synod Mihngi from providing pastoral services and administering Holy Sacraments. It also struck down earlier directions to the extent that they imposed a blanket or indefinite restriction on the church’s internal functioning.
The judgment draws a clear distinction between the administration’s responsibility to prevent a breach of peace and its authority to determine ecclesiastical rights. The administration can act where there is an actual or reasonably apprehended threat to public order, but that power cannot be used to decide which church group has authority over pastoral functions.
The Deputy Commissioner, the court held, could not interpret the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of India to determine whether ministers belonging to one Synod were entitled to provide pastoral care at the church. Questions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the internal administration of a religious denomination fall outside the executive’s role.
The court acknowledged the serious disagreement between rival groups and the possibility of confrontation, meaning the administration could not be faulted simply for trying to maintain peace. But preventing confrontation is different from deciding competing claims over church authority.
The substantive issues have therefore been left open. These include the February 1 resolution concerning disassociation from KJP Synod Sepngi, the appointment or removal of pastors, the jurisdiction of the competing Synods and rival claims over the management and control of the church.
Both sides have been directed to maintain peace and refrain from taking the law into their own hands. Their respective claims can instead be pursued before the competent ecclesiastical, civil or statutory forums.
