The long-running governance dispute at the Shree Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji moved a step forward in the High Court on April 24, when Acting Justice Penijamini Lomaloma delivered a ruling that revoked a temporary reinstatement of the ousted chairman and barred the Sabha from appointing a successor while legal proceedings continue.
Mahesh Kumar Mishra, who was appointed chairman of trustees on July 24, 2025, was informed by letter on February 3 this year that the National Executive Council (NEC) had resolved to remove him with immediate effect. Mishra filed a writ in the High Court seeking declarations that his removal was unlawful, illegal and procedurally flawed under the Sabha constitution, and asking for orders allowing him to continue in his role as chairman pending full resolution.
The court heard opposing submissions and extensive affidavit evidence from the defendants — Sabha president Dhirendra Nand, national secretary Krishneel Tiwari and the National Executive Council. The defendants opposed Mishra’s injunction application and alleged a series of concerns about his conduct while in office. Those allegations include that Mishra engaged independent legal advisers without NEC approval, breached confidentiality obligations, lodged a complaint with the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) about a government grant without consulting the NEC, and refused to sign legal documents linked to a proposed land purchase in Labasa.
Justice Lomaloma noted the contest between the parties and said there were “substantial factual disputes” that require proper determination at a substantive hearing. The judge warned against making conclusive findings on disputed affidavit evidence at this interlocutory stage. As a result, the court revoked an earlier interim order that had temporarily reinstated Mishra as chairman — finding that such primary relief could not be granted before a full hearing because it formed part of the main relief sought in the writ.
While setting aside the temporary reinstatement, the judge issued a consequential, but significant, injunction: the defendants are restrained from appointing or electing a replacement chairman of trustees until the injunction proceedings are fully determined. The order effectively preserves the status quo on trustee leadership and prevents the NEC from filling the vacancy while the court considers the parties’ competing claims.
The Shree Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji is described in the ruling as the country’s largest Hindu religious organisation; the dispute has implications for internal governance and for decisions tied to the Sabha’s property and finances, including the contested Labasa land transaction referenced in the affidavits. The High Court’s emphasis that contested facts must be tested at a substantive hearing signals that the matter will proceed to a fuller trial phase, where the core questions about process, authority and alleged misconduct will be determined. The April 24 decision is the latest legal development that keeps the leadership issue on hold while the courts consider the merits of Mishra’s claims.