Page No.# 1/8 GAHC020003862026 2026:GAU-NL:306 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/84/2026 SHRI T. TSUSUTHONG AND ANR S/O TOPANTHONG, R/O METONGER VILLAGE, KIPHIRE, NAGALAND - 798611 2: SHRI TSANGLI TIKHIR S/O YOUNGTHONG TIKHIR R/O SUKIUR A VILLAGE SHAMATOR NAGALAND - 79861 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001 2:THE STATE OF NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND 3:SHRI CHINGMAK CHANG PRESIDENT REPRESENTING THE EASTERN NAGALAND PEOPLES ORGANISATION (ENPO) HQ TUENSANG NAGALAND - 798612 4:SHRI TIMONG TIKHIR PRESIDENT REPRESENTING THE TIKHIR TRIBAL COUNCIL KIPHIRE Page No.# 2/8 NAGALAND - 798611 5:SHRI MARK MOREKIU ELECT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TIKHIR TRIBE TO THE INTERIM COUNCIL (FNTA) KIPHIRE NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER, IMLIMENLA IMCHEN,MAONGKALA,KEVISERIENUO,WAPANGLEMLA Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 26-05-2026 Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGC appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Imti Imsong, learned Additional AG appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the 2 (two) petitioners, one of the petitioners is 35 years of age, and the other petitioner is 60 years of age. 3. A Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the Government of India, Government of Nagaland and Eastern Nagaland Peoples’ Organisation (for short ENPO). In terms with the said agreement, a self government territorial authority would be constituted in the spirit of Article 371A of the Constitution, for autonomous council/authority to enable the people of the Eastern Page No.# 3/8 Nagaland Region to fulfil their social, political, economical, educational, cultural and linguistic aspirations. 4. In terms of the said Memorandum of Agreement, there would be a constitution of the Frontier Nagaland territorial authority which would have legislative, executive and administrative autonomy. Clause 3 of the agreement stipulated the manner in which the Frontier Nagaland Territory as well as Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority (for short FNTA) would be constituted. 5. Clause 5 is relevant for the purpose of the present dispute, as such, Clause 5 of the Memorandum of Agreement is reproduced herein under:- “5. Interim Arrangement 5.1 The Governor shall nominate an Interim Council consisting of not more than 13 members to look after the affairs of FNTA till it is constituted through elections. The members will be recommended by ENPO in consultation with the respective Tribal Councils and submitted to the State Government for approval of the Governor. The Governor may also on the recommendation of the State Government nominate not more thari 4 elected representatives (MP-1 & MLAs-3) from FNT area as Advisors to the Interim Council for coordination purposes with MHA and State Government. 5.2 The Interim Council shall not continue for a period beyond one year, during which, elections to FNTA shall be held.” 6. From the above quoted Clause 5.1, it would show that the Governor shall nominate the Interim Council consisting of not more Page No.# 4/8 than 13 members to look after the affairs of FNTA till it is constituted thorough elections. These 13 members would be nominated upon recommendation by the ENPO in the consultation with the respective Tribal Councils and such recommendation shall be submitted to the State Government for approval of the Governor. Additionally, the Governor may also on recommendation of the State government nominate not more than 4 elected representatives, of which there should be one Member of Parliament, and three Members of Legislative Assembly from FNT area as Advisors to the Interim Council for coordination purposes with the MHA and the State government. 7. Clause 5.2 further makes it very clear that the tenure of the Interim Council cannot exceed more than 1 year, during which period, elections to FNTA shall be held. 8. For the purpose of making the recommendation, the ENPO which is an organization of various tribal bodies held a meeting on 04.03.2026. In the said meeting, various aspects were discussed along with the 8 tribal Presidents, as to the basis for making recommendations for members to the Interim Council. The Meeting was minuted by Minutes of the Meeting dated 04.03.2026 under the signature of the Secretary of the ENPO. Relevant herein is Clause 4 of the Minutes of the Meeting held on 04.03.2026 and more particularly sub clause (iii). It stipulates as to the age of the persons who would be nominated. Clause 4 (iii) of the minutes being relevant is reproduced herein under:- Page No.# 5/8 “4(iii). Age: 40-65 : The individual must have attained the age of forty (40) years and above. The individual must not exceed sixty five (65) years of age at the time of appointment.” 9. From a perusal of the above quoted clause, it would show that it was mutually decided in the meeting that the age of the applicant should be between 40-65 years meaning thereby, an individual must have attained the age of 40 years and in addition, an individual must not exceed 65 years of age at the time of appointment. 10. Pursuant thereto, a communication was issued on 05.03.2026, to the Presidents of various tribal bodies, wherein the tribal bodies were requested to submit the short listed name/names on or before 10.03.2026 for further submission to the competent authority. The enclosures to the communication dated 05.03.2026, had 3 parts; Part A, Part B and Part C. Part A categorically mentioned the Framework for selection and recommendation of the members of the FNTA Interim Council (for short ‘the Framework dated 05.03.2026’). The Petitioners herein are aggrieved by Clause 2.3.1, of the Framework dated 05.03.2026, in as much as it is stipulated therein that an individual to be an applicant was to be of the age of 40 years. 11. It is also seen from the records that pursuant thereto, another Framework for selection and recommendation of the members of the FNTA Interim Council dated 06.03.2026, (for short ‘the Framework dated 06.03.2026’) wherein Clause 2.3.1 was modified Page No.# 6/8 whereby, the minimum age has been fixed at 42 years and above. The petitioners herein, being aggrieved by the insertion of the lower limit of the age at 42 years have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 12. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 13. Mr. Imti Imsong, learned Additional AG for the State of Nagaland had submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable, taking into account that the petitioner no. 1 has not attained the age of 40 years, and as regards the petitioner no. 2, he is eligible in so far as the age is concerned, taking into account that his age is 60 years. The learned Additional AG further submitted that it was the decision of the various tribal bodies in the Meeting dated 04.03.2026, to have the age between 40 and 65 years, and, therefore, the petitioners herein cannot question the same, as the petitioners’ tribe was duly represented in the said meeting. Apart from that, the learned Additional AG submitted that this is only for recommendation for membership in the Interim Council and as regards the election, the age would be as per the mandate of law. 14. This Court had given an anxious consideration, and is of the opinion that the petitioner no. 2 is not a ‘person aggrieved’ to challenge Clause 2.3.1 of the Framework dated 05.03.2026 or the Framework dated 06.03.2026, inasmuch as the said stipulation do not affect the petitioner no. 2 as his age is 60 years. Now, coming to Page No.# 7/8 the question as regards the petitioner no. 1, he claims to be 35 years of age. The decision taken in the Meeting held on 04.03.2026, was a decision amongst the various tribal bodies that, the age of the applicant to be recommended should be between 40-65 years. The petitioner no. 1 in the instant proceeding having not even attained the age of 40 years cannot question the Framework dated 06.03.2026 as only a person who had attained the age of 40 years could have challenged Clause 2.3.1 of the Framework dated 06.03.2026, which is contrary to Clause 4 (iii) of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 04.03.2026. In so far as the Framework dated 05.03.2026, it is based on the Minutes of the Meeting dated 04.03.2026, as such, as the decision is a collective decision of all the Tribal bodies. It is the opinion of this Court that the collective decision of the tribal bodies in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 04.03.2026, do not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution as they have been authorized by the Memorandum of Agreement. Apart from that, the decision taken in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 04.03.2026, was a decision wherein the tribe of both the petitioners were duly represented. 15. Considering the above, this Court does not find that the petitioners herein, are persons aggrieved in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge Clause 2.3.1 of the Framework dated 06.03.2026. Additionally, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the present writ petition for the reasons aforementioned. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. Page No.# 8/8 17. Before parting with the record, this Court observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice or preclude a person between the age of 40-42 years to approach this Court, challenging the Framework dated 06.03.2026, on the grounds that Clause 2.3.1 of the said Framework dated 06.03.2026 is contrary to Clause 4 (iii) of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 04.03.2026. 18. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant