01Facts
The applicants sought directions, including adequate police personnel, to facilitate the peaceful performance of Ka Leh Niam Iewduh, initially scheduled for 5 November 2026.
p. 3 · ¶ 1A dispute had arisen over who was entitled to collect voluntary contributions for the rituals: the applicants maintained that the Lyngdoh traditionally collected the contributions and issued receipts, while respondents 3 and 4 maintained that collection should be undertaken by a person authorised by the Dorbar.
p. 3 · ¶ 2The Court noted allegations concerning the use of funds for earlier rituals but did not determine them.
p. 4 · ¶ 2–3Following an earlier order dated 14 October 2026, the Syiem convened a Dorbar on 27 October 2026; the ritual date was subsequently fixed for 29 November 2026.
p. 4 · ¶ 4 · p. 5 · ¶ 602Issues
i.Whether directions were required to facilitate the peaceful performance of Ka Leh Niam Iewduh, including in light of the parties’ disagreement over the arrangements for the ritual.
p. 3 · ¶ 1 · p. 4 · ¶ 4ii.Whether the Court should direct a process for collecting and accounting for voluntary contributions, and for considering the proposed lists of persons to perform the rituals.
p. 5 · ¶ 6 · p. 5 · ¶ 703Law Applied
The judgment cites no statute or precedent.
It proceeds on the basis that disputes about the prior use of ritual funds were not for determination in this Miscellaneous Case.
p. 4 · ¶ 3For the arrangements at issue, the Court directed the Syiem to designate either a representative of the 5 Kur 11 Kur or the Lyngdoh to collect voluntary contributions, with the amounts recorded and receipts obtained to ensure that the funds went towards ritual expenses.
p. 5 · ¶ 604Reasoning
The Court considered that the Dorbar meeting had not reached an amicable resolution, partly because persons accompanying the Lyngdoh attended despite an objection; it regarded their presence as a matter of a mild nature and emphasised cooperation among the parties.
p. 5 · ¶ 6Given that the date had been fixed for 29 November 2026, the Court directed the parties to cooperate with that date and provided a transparent mechanism for collecting and accounting for contributions.
p. 5 · ¶ 6It also required the Syiem to consider the lists submitted by the applicants and respondent 4 and make appropriate orders after considering the names proposed.
p. 5 · ¶ 7The Court did not decide the allegations about past funds.
p. 4 · ¶ 305Holding
The Miscellaneous Case was disposed of.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6–8The Court directed the parties to cooperate with the ritual date of 29 November 2026; directed the Syiem to designate the person authorised to collect voluntary contributions, with records and receipts maintained; and directed consideration of the proposed lists of ritual performers.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6–8Although the application sought adequate police personnel, the judgment’s concluding directions do not expressly order a particular police deployment.
p. 3 · ¶ 1 · pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6–8Original Court PDF
KYRSHON MARBANIANG AND ANR.vsTHE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
