Page No.# 1/22 GAHC020005512025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/169/2025 SHRI K. TIA LONGKUMER @ K. TIALIBA LKR S/O LT. KIKATEMBA, R/O 09 ORIENTAL COLONY, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALANBD KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 4:THE CHUNGTIA VILLAGE COUNCIL MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 5:THE CHUNGTIAYIMSEN VILLAGE COUNCIL B.P.O. CHUNGTIAYIMSEN P.O. MANGKOLEMBA- 798604 MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 6:THE MOLUNGKIMONG LITERATURE BOARD MOLUNGKIMONG B.P.O. MOLUNGKIMONG Page No.# 2/22 P.O. TULI- 798613 MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENE Advocate for the Petitioner : TONGPOK PONGENER, AKUM JAMIR,LAKNYEI PHOM,ASENLA S LKR,VIKEHIENUO VIMERHA,AKUM AIER,KETI IMCHEN Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND Advocate for the petitioner: Mr. T. Pongener. Advocates for the respondents: Mr. L. T. Sangtam, Addl. A.G.; Mr. C. T. Jamir, Govt. Advocate; Mr. M. Jamir; and Mr. A. Ozukum Date on which judgment is reserved : 07.04.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment : Full judgment. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) 1. The petitioner in this case is Shri. K. Tia Longkumer @K. Tialiba Lkr, whereas the respondents are the State of Nagaland represented by the Chief Secretary, the Commissioner of Nagaland, Kohima, the Deputy Commissioner Mokokchung, Page No.# 3/22 Nagaland, the Chungtia Village Council, Mokokchung, the Chungtiayimsen Village Council, Mokokchung, Nagaland and the Molungkimong Literature Board, Molungkimong, Mokokchung. The respondents are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. 2. The petitioner's case is that he belongs to the Ao Naga tribe and he is the Principal of Haven of Hope Seminary, Dimapur. He hails from Chungtiayimsen Village Council, Mokokchung, (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 5). 3. It is submitted that the Chungtiayimsen Village was established in 1961 by erstwhile villagers of Chungtia village. This case is basically against the respondent No. 4, the Chungtia Village Council, and the respondent No. 5, the Chungtiayimsen Village Council. Both respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are statutory bodies recognized as such by the Nagaland Village and Area Council Act, 1978, (the Act of 1978 for short). 4. It is averred that the petitioner authored an article in Ao Naga language titled, “Molungkimong Literature Boar, Den Ku Tebilemba Oren Kar Lemsateper”, meaning:- sharing a few thoughts with Molungkimong Literature Board. This article was published in the editorial column of the Ao Vernacular newspaper,”Tir Yimyim” in two parts, on 14.02.2025 and 15.02.2025 respectively. In the said article, the petitioner, while acknowledging the founding of the Church for the first time in Nagaland at Molungkimong village, (Dekahaimong) in December, 1872 by Rev. Dr. E.W. Clark, in good faith, inter alia, suggested a few corrections to an article published by the Molungkimong Literature Board regarding historical facts. The petitioner offered the corrective suggestions quoting existing historical literature. 5. It is averred that the Molungkimong Literature Board, replying to the petitioner's article, also published an article titled, “Osang Kaket (Newspaper) nung kibok sensangsem” meaning Private Discourse in Newspaper, in the Editorial Column of “Tir Yimyim” on 01.03.2025. Through the aforementioned article, the Board justified that their article suggested essentially that instead of back and forth write-ups in newspaper, the truth can best be ascertained only in a meeting and after proper discussions in the meeting. Annexures-A1 and A2 are the articles published by the Page No.# 4/22 petitioner dated 14.02.2025 and 15.02.2025. Annexure-B is the article published by the Board on 01.03.2025. Taking a cue from Annexure-B, the petitioner did not publish any matter further and so did the Molungkimong Literature Board. However, to the dismay of the petitioner, the Chungtia Village Council, i.e., the respondent No. 4, taking umbrage at the article published by the petitioner for no apparent reason, issued the impugned letter dated 03.03.2025 directing the petitioner to recall the article published in Tir Yimyim on 14.02.2025 and 15.02.2025 on or before 15.03.2025. The impugned letter is marked as Annexure-C of the petition. 6. It is submitted that a perusal of the article published by the petitioner reveals that no word or sentence contains any reference to the Chungtia village or any fact related to the history of the said village to the annoyance of the villagers, and so the petitioner vide letter dated 08.03.2025 informed the respondent No. 4 that by virtue of being a member of the DABA (Dimapur Ao Baptist Arogo) based on the right to express one's opinion in the media, the petitioner with a view to edify the ABAM (Ao Baptist Arogo Mungdang) and the Church in general had shared his view; if any person should bring any new facts contrary to what the petitioner stated in his article; he is willing to iron out the differences amicably with the person. 7. Annexure-D is the letter dated 08.03.2025. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 issued the impugned letter dated 13.03.2025 directing the petitioner to appear on the 25.03.2025 (Annexure-E). It is submitted that the petitioner not being obliged to appear before the respondent No. 4 did not comply with the summons, and the respondent No. 4 then issued the impugned letter dated 26.03.2025 addressed to the elder brother of the petitioner, Mr. K Temjen Lkr., directing him and his Brethren to produce the petitioner before respondent No. 4 on 11.04.2025 at about 6:30 pm (Annexure-F). It is submitted that as the petitioner's brother did not comply with the direction vide letter dated 26.03.2025, the respondent No. 4 requested the respondent No. 5, the Village Council to which the petitioner belongs to produce the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 20.06.2025 informed the petitioner to appear before the respondent No. 4 (Annexure-G). Page No.# 5/22 8. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 5 on 24.06.2025 and after having understood the matter, the respondent No. 5 informed the respondent No. 4 that the petitioner was advised to personally appear before the respondent No. 4 on 27.06.2025. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 20.06.2025 requested the respondent No. 5 to produce the petitioner before it on 08.07.2025 at 11 a.m. On being pressurized by respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 5 issued a letter dated 03.07.2025 informing the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 met the respondent No. 4 on 27.06.2025, and pleaded with the respondent No. 4 to drop the case against the petitioner, but the respondent No. 4 ignoring the requests, again summoned the petitioner on 08.07.2025 at 11 a.m. 9. It is contended that the petitioner through reliable source has learnt that respondent No. 4 was preparing to depute its members to forcefully abduct the petitioner from his residence at Dimapur in order to produce him before the Village Council on 08.07.2025. In apprehension, the petitioner was impelled to lodge an Ezahar (FIR) dated 03.07.2025 addressed to the Officer in Charge of West Police Station, Dimapur. Considering the gravity of the situation, the petitioner also approached the Commissioner of Police, Dimapur, and apprised him of the fact and instead of lodging the FIR in the Police station at Dimapur, the FIR was directly submitted to the Commissioner. The Commissioner endorsed the matter to the West Police Station with instructions to take necessary steps. The O.C. of West Police Station summoned the president of Chungtia Union, Dimapur and warned him and directed him to abstain from taking any action against the petitioner lest, to face consequences. A copy of the FIR is marked as Annexure-J of the petition. 10. It is further submitted that the petitioner also wrote a letter dated 05.07.2025 in the form of a reply to the letter dated 03.07.2025 issued by the respondent No. 5 thanking the respondent for espousing his cause, but the petitioner, however politely informed respondent No. 5 that unless and until the respondent No. 4 could provide clear facts and reasons for the summons, he would refrain from appearing before respondent No. 4. It is further contended that the respondent No. 4 who was unable to compel the petitioner to appear before it published the impugned proclamation Page No.# 6/22 dated 12.08.2025 through ‘Tir Yimyim’ proclaiming, essentially that the petitioner who published his opinion in the Editorial column of ‘Tir Yimyim’ is not a native (citizen) of Chungtia Village; and the disputed publication is not the history of Chungtia Village; and in order to resolve the issue, the petitioner was summoned to the Village Council, but the petitioner failed to appear, and therefore, the Village Council had proclaimed that no citizen of Chungtia shall live in co-operation with the petitioner. Annexure-L is the impugned proclamation dated 12.08.2025. 11. It is contended by the petitioner that the proclamation was issued without any jurisdiction by the respondent No. 4 as the petitioner is not a native of respondent No. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not claim through the articles published by him on 14.02.2025 and 15.02.2025 that he is a citizen of Chungtia Village or the article is the history of Chungtia Village, i.e., the respondent No. 4. 12. It is also averred that respondent No. 4 pressurized respondent No. 5 to take appropriate action and this impelled the respondent No. 5 to issue the letter dated 20.08.2025 informing the petitioner that they were compelled to appear before the respondent No. 4 for a discussion and after the discussion with the respondent No. 4, it was decided that the petitioner is to appear before the respondent No. 5 on 19.08.2025 at 7 p.m. The petitioner however, informed respondent No. 5 that he would be out of station on 19.08.2025 but the respondent No. 5 vide impugned letter dated 20.08.2025 directed the petitioner to appear before it on 28.08.2025 at 7 p.m. (Annexure-N). 13. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 has no legal jurisdiction or any valid ground whatsoever to issue the impugned letters to compel the petitioner to appear before it and/or to pass the impugned proclamation dated 12.08.2025. Thereby, the impugned letters and proclamation issued by the respondent No. 4, being ex facie illegal are thus liable to be quashed and set aside and respondent No. 4 is liable to retract/recall the aforementioned impugned letters and proclamation through publication in the newspaper. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner laid stress in his argument that the Page No.# 7/22 respondent No. 4 initially failed to impress upon the petitioner to appear before it directly and thereby in a covert manner, the respondent No. 4 indirectly tried to compel the petitioner to appear before the Village Council by pressurizing the respondent No. 5. It is also argued that realizing that the respondent No. 4 had no authority to penalize/punish the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 pressurized the respondent No. 5 to take some form of action and reluctantly, the respondent No. 5 had to issue the letters dated 12.08.2025 and 19.08.2025 on compulsion. The respondent No. 5 also had no jurisdiction to take up a matter assigned to it or forced upon it by the respondent No. 4 and as such the impugned letters dated 12.08.2025 and 19.08.2025 are unsustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed. 15. It is also emphasized through the argument that the respondent No. 4 had no jurisdiction to ostracize the petitioner by character assassination without any reasonable and just cause. The act of the respondent No. 4 has marred his reputation and tarnished this image. The petitioner’s prayers are as follows:- (i) set aside and quash the impugned letter dated 03.03.2025 issued by the respondent No. 4 (ANNEXURE 'C'); (ii) set aside and quash the impugned letter dated 13.03.2025 issued by the respondent No. 4 (ANNEXURE 'Ε'); (iii) set aside and quash the impugned letter dated 26.03.2025 issued by the respondent No. 4 (ANNEXURE 'F'); (iv) set aside and quash the impugned Proclamation dated 12.08.2025 issued by the respondent No. 4 (ANNEXURE - 'L'); (v) set aside and quash the impugned letter dated 12.08.2025 issued by the respondent No. 5 (ANNEXURE 'M'); (vi) set aside and quash the impugned letter dated 19.08.2025 (ANNEXURE - 'N'); (vii) direct the respondent No. 4 to recall/retract the impugned Proclamation, with apology to Page No.# 8/22 the petitioner, by publishing the recall/retraction in the newspaper; (viii) direct the respondent No. 4 to refrain from proceeding any further against the petitioner in any manner whatsoever; ; and other reliefs as prayed for, by the petitioner. 16. The respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 submitted an affidavit-in-opposition and also an additional affidavit was submitted by the respondent No. 4, i.e., the Chairman of Chungtia Village Council. Sri Assam Wati has filed an affidavit in opposition. 17. Through the affidavit-in-opposition and argument submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. C. T. Jamir on behalf of respondent No. 4, it is contended that although the respondent No. 4 requested the petitioner to recall the articles published by him in ‘Tir Yimyim’, the petitioner has failed to recall the same. This impelled the respondent No. 4 to issue the impugned letter dated 13.03.2025 and when the petitioner failed to appear, another letter dated 26.03.2025 was addressed to the elder brother of the petitioner to produce the petitioner before the respondent No. 4 and this direction of the respondent No. 4 was also not complied with. This impelled the respondent No. 4 to apprise the respondent No. 5, i.e., Chungtiayimsen Village Council to produce the petitioner before the respondent No. 4 as the petitioner is a member of respondent No. 5. All these communications were made with intent to amicably resolve the issues with the petitioner who failed to co-operate. 18. Having left with no remedy, the respondent No. 4 was impelled to issue the non- cooperation declaration dated 12.08.2025, which is not punishment per se as the petitioner is not a member of Chungtia Village Council and no fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed. 19. It is submitted that instead of resorting to the remedy available as per law, the petitioner has approached this Court by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this petition is not maintainable. It is contended that on any decision taken by the Chungtia Village Council and on any ancillary action if Page No.# 9/22 challenged, there are prescribed provisions as per Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 (The Rules of 1937 for short). Rule 31 has prescribed a provision for appeal against decision of any local authorities before the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. It is contended that the petitioner has not reflected in the petition, what prevented him from filing an appeal under the Rules of 1937 and hence the petitioner has failed to avail the alternative remedy provided under law before approaching this Court. 20. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that where a statutory remedy of appeal is available, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily be invoked without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner has directly approached this Court. It is also submitted by the respondent No. 4 that the relief sought by the petitioner is premature. No final decision has been taken pertaining to the issues between the parties. Owing to the non co-operation by the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 was compelled to take temporary action vide the declaration dated 12.08.2025, which is only a protective measure and not any form of punishment. 21. It is further contended that the respondent No. 4's village is the Godfather Village of the respondent No. 6's village and the Village Council of respondent No. 4 could issue any statement or publication concerning the respondent No. 6's village and not by the petitioner in order to maintain the cordial relationship built by their forefathers. The petitioner who published the articles dated 14.02.2025 and 15.02.2025 in his individual capacity could have led to misunderstanding between two villages and to ameliorate such situation, the petitioner was called for a discussion with the Village Council for an amicable settlement. It is vehemently denied by the respondent No. 4 that they have been planning to forcefully abduct the petitioner from his residence and it is contended that such allegation of the petitioner appears to be fanciful. 22. It is further submitted by the respondent No. 4 that although the Chungtia village and the Chungtiayimsen village are recognized as different villages, the Chungtiayimsen is a new village which evolved from Chungtia village and the villagers Page No.# 10/22 of both the villages address themselves as Chungtians. An act by any of the members of the two villages is considered to be an act by the Chungtians according to the origin and historical facts related with the new village evolving from the old Chungtia village. Thus, in order to avoid such complications/misunderstandings, the petitioner was summoned by the Chungtia Village Council in order to clarify his position and the proclamation dated 12.08.2025 was issued proclaiming that the petitioner is not a native of the Chungtia Village Council and the petitioner's publication is not the history of Chungtia Village and it was directed that no citizen of Chungtia should co-operate with the petitioner. 23. The additional affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 4 to bring some vital documents on record. Through the additional affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent No. 4 has submitted that on 20.03.2026, while this petition was taken up for hearing, the petitioner had categorically made a submission that he does not belong to Chungtia Village or Chungtiayimsen Village, which is contrary to the statement made in Paragraph-2 of the writ petition. The petitioner then sought for a permission to dissociate his primary membership from Chungtia Village. To become a member of Chungtiayimsen village, a No-objection certificate was issued by the respondent No. 4 granting him permission for the same. This proves that the petitioner cannot claim that he is not a member of either of the villages, i.e. respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5. The copy of the NOC is marked as Annexure-A of the affidavit-in-opposition. 24. It is further submitted on behalf of respondent No. 4 that it is the policy of the Government of Nagaland, (vide notification dated 10.04.2025), that any person availing Indigenous Inhabitants certificate would retract to its original village and the antecedents are traced from the Electoral Roll, post Statehood. It is further submitted that from the records, the names of the petitioners' father and forefathers appear at Serial No. 369 in (Koridang AC, Chungtia Village) Electoral Roll issued by the District Election Commission. 25. It is further submitted that it is the customary practice of the Ao Naga that if any individual makes any comment or statement contrary to the historical facts linked to its Page No.# 11/22 origin and establishment, then in such a case, ‘Putu Menden’ exercises its customary rights and practices, and summons such a person to adjudicate on the matter as is the customary practice. Therefore, in the present scenario, the petitioner cannot agitate that he is not a bonafide member of the respondent No. 4, although his primary membership is from the respondent No. 4's village, his actions are directly in conflict with the interests of respondent No. 4 and is thus liable for adjudication before the ‘Putu Menden’. Annexures-B and C are the notification dated 10.04.2025 and the Electoral Roll respectively. 26. The respondent No. 5, Sri Assam Wati, Chairman of Chungtiya Village has also filed affidavit-in-opposition for the respondent No. 5, i.e. Chungtiayimsen Village. The respondent No. 5 has concurred with the argument submitted on behalf of respondent No. 4. 27. The respondent No. 6 is the Molungkimong Literature Board. Sri Lima Wati has filed an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 has inter alia denied the averments in the writ petition. It is argued on behalf of respondent No. 6 that the petitioner never approached the competent authority to ventilate his grievances and seek appropriate relief against the impugned letters and proclamations. 28. It is further averred that it is well settled that the rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner cannot invoke the protection of Article 19(1)(a) on the alleged ground of violation of Freedom of Speech, more particularly, when the actions complained of, fall within the scope of lawful and reasonable restrictions. 29. It is submitted that the impugned letters were issued by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in order to accord an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard strictly in consonance with the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that some points in the article published by the petitioner dated 14.02.2025 and 15.02.2025 through ‘Tir Yimyim’ are not correct and contradictory to the long standing history and the Page No.# 12/22 respondent No. 6 decided to publish replies/rejoinder against the said article. 30. The history of establishment of a new village on 24.10.1876 by a group of Molungkimong villagers called Molungyimsen village as published is not correct. 31. The remaining part of the argument on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents will be discussed at the appropriate stage. 32. The arguments on behalf of the parties are heard and the petition along with the objections have been scrutinized and the documents perused. It is not necessary to get into the details of the origin of the villages or the precision of the impugned articles published by the petitioner. 33. The issues in this case are:- “ Whether the respondents are at fault in issuing proclamation dated 12.08.2025 and whether the petitioner is at fault for not appearing before the respondent No. 4 for an amicable settlement and discussion relating to the articles published in 'Tir Yimyim' on 14.02.2025 and 15.02.2025.” 34. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the respondents have stressed that there is an Appellate authority and the petitioner without exhausting the statutory remedies, preferred this writ petition instead. 35. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no appeal lies as the respondent No. 4 had no jurisdiction to issue the proclamation and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. In fact, this writ petition was filed in consonance with the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short). The respondent No. 6 is the party who ought to have been aggrieved and the orders directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 could be easily ignored as all the letters impugned by the petitioner are void ab initio. 36. The proclamation was issued by a State as per Article 12 of the Constitution and so Page No.# 13/22 the petitioner is before this Court. Referring, further to the argument of the respondent No. 4, it is submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and his petition is liable to be dismissed. 37. It would be apt to reiterate that the petitioner's fundamental right or any legal right was not violated through the impugned proclamation. 38. I have carefully scrutinized the order dated 20.03.2026 in this case which has been emphasized by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. It is true that the NOC has not been denied by the petitioner. The NOC is marked as Annexure-A of the additional-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 dated 24.03.2026, as the petitioner has admitted that he is indeed a resident of Chungtiayimsen Village. Whether this would tantamount to a false submission before this Court which led this Court to pass the Order dated 20.03.2026? Indeed, the petitioner has claimed before this Court and it has been observed by the Court vide order dated 20.03.2026 that the petitioner is a resident of Dimapur and he was earlier from the village of respondent No. 5. It was also observed by this Court that the petitioner was not a resident within the jurisdiction of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for the last few decades. However, the Annexure-A i.e., the NOC clearly depicts that the NOC was issued not very long ago i.e., on 27.07.2019, which clearly reveals that the petitioner applied for permission to become a citizen of Chungtiayimsen Village i.e. respondent No. 5.On this submission alone and without getting into details, it is held that the petitioner was indeed under the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 5 which is an offshoot of respondent No. 4. The same group of people belonging to the same ethnicity of respondent No. 4 went to reside in the village of respondent No. 5, and there is a close affinity between both the villages whereas, respondent No. 6 was taken under the wing of respondent No. 4. It would be apt to reiterate that the petitioner made a contradictory statement in the Court on 20.03.2026 stating that he was a resident of Chungtiayimsen Village decades ago whereas, it is clear from the NOC dated 27.07.2019 that he applied for residency in Chungtiayimsen Village on 27.07.2019. 39. Now, it is also pertinent to mention that this Court is not required to get into the Page No.# 14/22 history of dispute relating to the formation of Nagaland or the origin of the advent of Christianity in the history of Nagaland. The parties are at variance if the petitioner's right to life and liberty has been infringed and whether the proclamation dated 12.08.2025 was correctly issued by the respondent No. 4 in consonance with the respondent No. 5. It is true that the petitioner's articles have hurt the sentiments of the respondents as, according to the respondents, the opinion of the petitioner was historically incorrect. 40. It is allegedly an erroneous view of the petitioner that with the advent of Christianity a new village, Molungyimsen was formed and renamed as New Molong. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 6 that there is a permanent boundary demarcation between Molungkimong and Molungyimsen and the Molungyimsen village has been duly recognized by the Government as a separate village. It has been wrongly claimed that Molungyimsen is merely an extension or colony of Molungkimong. 41. Therefore, all these views could have been easily resolved and settled through an amicable discussion between both the parties as both the parties could have sorted out their differences relating to the advent of Christianity in Molungkimong/Dekahaimong Village as it is claimed that at the time when Christianity was introduced in the year 1872, Molungyimsen village was not in existence as it was established on 24.10.1876. 42. Considering the debate relating to the origin of Christianity, it appears that this can be easily and amicably resolved without taking offense. 43. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that many historical events are handed down from generations by the forefathers to their descendants orally in gatherings and group discussions. There may not be any records and some events may be recorded. These differences can be amicably sorted out by tracking recorded events as well as historical events and narratives transmitted by the ancestors across generations. Without getting into the details of the history of Christianity or establishment of the first Church, it is pertinent to mention at this juncture, that the petitioner was indeed Page No.# 15/22 summoned by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and he was accorded sufficient opportunity to resolve their differences amicably. 44. It could not be deciphered from the pleadings that the petitioner was apprehending danger as the respondent No. 4 was planning to abduct him. Although the petitioner has submitted a copy of the FIR marked as Annexure-J, there is no evidence that the FIR was registered and investigation commenced after registration of an FIR. Now, whether the proclamation is liable to be set aside on the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the proclamation was issued only on account of non-cooperation by the petitioner. The proclamation was issued only for Administration of Justice according to customary traditions and not to infringe the right to life and liberty of the petitioner. 45. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that Section 6 of the Act of 1978 has not taken away the customs and usage as Section 6 reads:- A) Every Village Council, unless otherwise dissolved by the State Government, shall continue for five years from the date of appointment, provided that the said period may be extended by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette for a period not exceeding one year at a time. B) All members shall hold office during the life of the Village Council Provided that a member chosen to fill in a casual vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the term of office of the member whom he replaced; Provided further that Village institutions which were traditionally established like the "Putu Menden" in Ao Area and recognised as Village Council shall continue to function as Village Council according to respective custom and usage.” 47. It is also submitted that law is silent about anything outside the village and under Section 14, it is stated that:- (1) The Village Council constituted under the law in force from time to time shall administer justice within the Village limits in accordance with the customary law and usages as accepted by Page No.# 16/22 the canons of justice established in Nagaland and the law in this respect as enforced from time to time. (2) In case of disputes between villages falling in different areas or districts, two or more Village Councils may settle a dispute in a joint session or refer it to the appropriate authority”. 46. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the petitioner has submitted that the articles were published not to hurt any religious sentiments. 47. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that even the Village Council were willing to sort out the differences relating to the advent of Christianity with a discussion with the petitioner. These disputes between both the parties stems from historical research regarding the arrival of Christianity. 48. Article 19(1)(a) confers constitutional right to publish, write, and voice historical analysis- including research about the advent of Christianity in Nagaland, without fear of institutional retaliation. Article 21 guarantees right to life and dignity. Forcing a community to cut off social and commercial ties with residents, strips them of their right to live with human dignity and earn a livelihood. It is no more res integra that an appeal lies against the decision of the Village council issuing proclamation against the petitioner. However, if the proclamation involves severe penalties like social ban, restriction of movement or eviction, the petitioner may prefer a writ petition under Article 226. 49. It is open for both the sides to sit for a discussion, if at all, the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, believes that the petitioner has distorted history relating to the advent of Christianity in the State of Nagaland. Although, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 4, that the decree of social boycott was a harmless decree and not punishment per se, yet, it appears that the petitioner's right to dignity has been curtailed. 50. The petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Mangyang Lima Vs. The State of Nagaland and Ors, reported in 2019 (1) GLT 409 and on Page No.# 17/22 a decision of this Court in Shri T. Chalukumba Ao, in connection with WP(C) No. 128 /2023, wherein it has been held that- “Article 19[1][d] of the Constitution of India has provided that all citizens shall have right to move freely throughout the territory of India whereas Article 19[1][e] has provided that all citizens shall have right to reside sand settle in any part of the territory of India. Clause [5] of Article 19 has stipulated that nothing in sub- clauses [d] and [e] of the Clause [1] shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. Article 19[1][d] of the Constitution guarantees that the citizens of the country shall have right to go wherever they like in the Indian territory without any kind of restriction whatsoever. The citizens can move from one State to another and can move one place to another within the same State as the Constitution has treated the entire Indian territory as one unit so far as the movement of citizens are concerned. The fundamental right under Article 19[1] [e] is of similar nature. Reasonable restrictions can, however, be imposed on the exercise of any of those rights by law either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. Article 21 which protects life and personal liberty, has enunciated that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. **** **** **** The fact situation obtaining in the case in hand are similar to the one involved in Mangyang Lima (surpa). The petitioner herein, by the impugned Order dated 16.02.2023, was first, temporarily debarred from being part of Chungtia Village and by the subsequent impugned Order dated 30.06.2023, the petitioner has been debarred and excommunicated from the citizenship of Chungtia village for lifetime by the respondent no. 4, Chungtia Medemchanger Putu Menden. As the respondent no. 4. Chungtia Medemchanger Putu Menden, being a body amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the legality and validity of the impugned orders are definitely within Page No.# 18/22 the scope of judicial review under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari is available when subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a Jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record and such act, omission or error or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. As the respondent no. As the respondent no. 4 does not have the power, authority and jurisdiction to pass an order to excommunicate and debar a native within its territorial jurisdiction either temporarily or permanently on the pretext of enforcing customary laws, the impugned Order dated 16.02.2023 and the impugned Order dated 30.06.2023 are found to be passed in excess of its power, authority and jurisdiction of the respondent no. 4 and the same, thus, are liable to be set aside and quashed. The impugned Orders are also found to have passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity to represent his case before passing of the impugned Orders. In such view of the matter, both the Orders, that is, the Order dated 16.02.2023 and the Order dated 30.06.2023, are set aside and quashed. As a corollary, the petitioner can remain in his village and he cannot be subject to social boycott/expulsion from Chungtia Village, as directed by the respondent no. 4 Chungtia Village Council, that is, Chungtia Medemchanger Putu Menden. In granting a writ of certiorari, a High Court does not exercise the power of an appellant authority. It sets aside or quashes the order which it considers to be without power, authority and jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers, found to have been acted without jurisdiction. The offending order or proceeding is put out of the way as one which should not be used to the detriment of any citizen. As the respondent nos. 5 to 18 had issued the impugned Orders - dated 16.02.2023 and dated 30.06.2023 as members of the respondent no. 4 in their capacity as its members and the impugned Orders were decisions taken collectively, the Court is not persuaded to observe anything further as regards the relief sought for by the petitioner in the Page No.# 19/22 form of a direction to the respondent no. 3 to initiate proper action against them as provided under the law. It is, however, made clear that such observation shall not, however, preclude the petitioner to resort to any other appropriate remedy, as permissible under the law.” 51. It has been held by this Court in Mangyang Lima (Supra) that:- 87. However, no provision has been made giving an overriding effect over provisions of Part III of the Constitution. In other words, all these special provisions dealing with Scheduled Tribes are subject to the provisions of Part III and any such law or customary laws or customary practices will be subject to Article 13 of the Constitution. Thus, wherever, there is any conflict of the customary law with the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution, to the extent of inconsistency, such customary law will be void. 88. It may be also relevant to mention herein that in the State of Nagaland, administration of justice till very recently has been governed by the "Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937" as amended from time to time, the last amendment being the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland (Third Amendment) Act, 1984. Under the aforesaid amendment Act of 1984, the Customary Courts have been formally recognized and constituted It has been provided under Rule 39 of the Rules that there shall be three classes of Customary Courts to be constituted by the State Government for the trial of suits and cases between the parties; all of whom belonging to a Scheduled Tribe or Tribes with powers and jurisdiction mentioned therein, as (1) Village Courts, (ii) Subordinate District Customary Courts, (iii) District Customary Courts, Page No.# 20/22 As per Rule 40 of the aforesaid Rules, there shall be a Village Court for each village which shall be composed of members of the Village Council constituted under the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 (including Gaon Buras and Angs of the respective village. The powers of the Village Court has been laid down under Rule 45 which enables the Village Court to try cases of civil and miscellaneous nature falling within the purview of the village or tribal laws and customs. The Village Court would have also the jurisdiction to try criminal cases falling within the purview of tribal laws, customs and offences of theft, pilfering, mischief, trespass, assault, hurt, affray of whatever kind, drunkenness or disorderly brawling, public nuisance and cases of wrongful restraint and such offences occurring within the jurisdiction of the Village Court. It has been stated under Rule 46 (1) that a Village Court shall not be competent to pass a sentence of imprisonment in any criminal case It shall have power to impose a fine for any offence it is competence to try. up to a limit of Rs. 500 (Rupees Five hundred). It may also award payment in restitution or compensation to the aggrieved or injured party in accordance with the customary law. Further, in a civil case a Village Court shall have power to award costs as also compensation to those against whom unfounded or vexatious suits or cases have been instituted before the Court, and the fines and payments imposed and ordered under sub Rules (1) and (2) may be enforced by distraint of the property of the offender. From the above, it is very clear that the Village Court which has the authority to decide on the basis of customary laws does not have the power of banishment or ex-communication as the case may be. Neither the Subordinate District Customary Courts nor the District Customary Courts also have any such authority to impose the punishment of banishment or excommunication. 89. Thus, as evident from above, statutory laws do not recognize any form of punishment of excommunication or banishment even for offences involving customary laws. The issue raised in this petition is whether such mode of punishment will be permissible by any body or entity in purported exercise of enforcing customary laws. The answer of this Court is in the negative in the light of the discussions above referred. Page No.# 21/22 52. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the proclamation of non-cooperation indeed infringes the right to liberty and the right to live with dignity. There is not an iota of doubt that the petitioner will be locked up from the entire area, if the citizens refuse to cooperate with the petitioner and his right to life and to live with dignity will be affected. 52. I have also relied on a decision of this Court in Mangyang Lima (Supra) and Shri T. Chalukumba Ao (Supra). In this case on hand, it appears that a decision of non-cooperation with the petitioner may consequently deprive the petitioner from essential services like buying items from the local village shops or services like water, electricity, etc., to the disadvantage of the petitioner. 53. In view of the foregoing discussions, the proclamation dated 12.08.2025 that no citizen of Chungtia village shall live in cooperation with the petitioner is set aside and quashed. 54. As there is a scope of settlement, the parties may sort out their differences through an amicable settlement, if so advised. The No-Objection Certificate marked as Annexure-A of the additional-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, dated (24.03.2026), reveals that on 27.07.2019, a No-Objection Certificate was issued by the Chairman of Chungtia Village Council that the petitioner was granted permission to become a citizen of Chungtiayimsen village as earlier he was a citizen of Chungtia village. This NOC was issued about 7 years back. 55. Both the parties are at liberty to decide on the issue of the jurisdiction of the petitioners domicile, and sort out their differences relating to the history of advent of Christianity in the state of Nagaland. 56. In terms of the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. 57. No order as to costs. Page No.# 22/22 JUDGE Comparing Assistant