The Gauhati High Court has ruled that Article 371A of the Constitution cannot be used to shield Naga customary institutions from judicial scrutiny when their decisions violate fundamental rights. The Court quashed the excommunication of 38 villagers and their families by traditional village bodies in Nagaland, holding that customary practices cannot override constitutional protections.
Background
The dispute arose from a disagreement over the year of establishment of the Chumoukedima Yaongyimsen Union. One group claimed that the organisation was established in 1989, while another maintained that its formation should be recognised as 2001.
The disagreement eventually reached the Yaongyimsen Putu Menden and Yaongyimsen Senso Mungdang. Following the dispute, the Senso Mungdang issued an announcement in October 2024 excommunicating 42 persons, including the petitioners, and their families from Yaongyimsen village.
A subsequent decision communicated on December 10, 2024, imposed further restrictions. The affected families were prohibited from entering the village, entering into marital relationships with other villagers, and identifying themselves as Yaongyimsen villagers in churches and social organisations. The decision also directed steps to remove the village name from their documents and certificates.
Challenging these actions, the petitioners approached the High Court, arguing that the decisions violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer first examined whether traditional customary institutions could be brought within the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226, even if they were not government authorities.
The Court observed that the nature of the functions performed by an institution, rather than merely its classification as public or private, determines whether judicial review can be exercised.
The Court held:
"The decisive question is whether the private association/institution performs a public duty or public function and whether the impugned action has a public law element or whether the duty sought to be enforced is otherwise enforceable through a writ."
The Court noted that the Putu Menden and Senso Mungdang exercised extensive control over villagers and that their decisions affected village identity, Scheduled Tribe certificates, indigenous inhabitant certificates and other legally protected interests.
Rejecting the argument that Article 371A protected the impugned decisions, the Court clarified that constitutional protection of Naga customs does not grant customary institutions unrestricted authority.
The judgment observed:
"The Constitutional protection cannot be considered as conferring an unrestricted power to oppose any form of sanction in the name of tradition."
The Court further held that Article 29 and Article 371A cannot be interpreted as completely excluding customary practices from judicial review. Customs having the force of law must also be examined against fundamental rights.
It also noted that the restrictions affected the wives and children of the petitioners, despite their having no connection with the underlying dispute.
Holding that the excommunication and associated restrictions violated Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the Gauhati High Court quashed the information dated December 10, 2024, and the related announcements and information issued in April and October 2024.
The Court allowed the writ petition and clarified that it had not decided the separate dispute concerning whether the Chumoukedima Yaongyimsen Union was established in 1989 or 2001.
Aggrieved parties were left free to approach the appropriate forum on that issue.
