Gauhati High Court quashes Chungtia Village Council’s non-cooperation decree against theologian K Tia Longkumer.
Share
DIMAPUR — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has quashed a non-cooperation proclamation issued by Chungtia Village Council (CVC) in Mokokchung district against a theologian.
Delivering judgement on June 23, Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund ruled that while customary institutions like the Putu Menden are statutorily recognised, they cannot enforce decrees that infringe upon a citizen's fundamental rights to life, personal liberty, and human dignity.
According to court records, the legal battle originated from a two-part article authored by the petitioner, K Tia Longkumer, Principal of Haven of Hope Seminary in Dimapur.
Published in the editorial columns of the Ao vernacular daily Tir Yimyim on February 14 and 15, 2025, the article offered ‘corrective suggestions’ regarding historical facts surrounding the advent of Christianity in Nagaland.
Longkumer, citing historical literature, had engaged in a public discourse with the Molungkimong Literature Board regarding the establishment of the first church by Rev. Dr. EW Clark in December 1872.
The Molungkimong Literature Board subsequently published a response, suggesting that the matter be resolved through discussions rather than newspaper exchanges.
However, the Chungtia Village Council took umbrage at the text and directed Longkumer to withdraw his articles and repeatedly summoned him for discussions.
Also read: HC allows Nagaland government to complete recruitment for 46 Excise Constables
Nagaland: HC says temporary government appointments cannot become permanent
When Longkumer declined to appear, maintaining that the council lacked jurisdiction over him, the village council issued a proclamation declaring that no citizen of Chungtia village should cooperate with him.
Challenging the proclamation and a series of summons issued by the village councils, Longkumer approached the High Court, contending that the actions violated his constitutional rights and amounted to unlawful social ostracism.
During the proceedings, the respondents contended that the summons were intended to facilitate an amicable settlement of the dispute and that the proclamation was not punitive in nature but a consequence of the petitioner's refusal to participate in discussions.
The court, however, observed that while customary institutions play an important role in Nagaland's social fabric, any action that results in social boycott or denial of cooperation can have serious consequences on an individual's dignity and ability to access essential services.
Justice Khaund remarked that a declaration of non-cooperation could potentially deprive a person of access to everyday necessities and adversely affect the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“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,” the ruling read.
The court relied on earlier judgements, including Mangyang Lima vs State of Nagaland and T Chalukumba Ao vs State of Nagaland, which held that customary bodies do not possess the authority to impose punishments such as excommunication, banishment or social boycott.
While recognising the importance of customary dispute-resolution mechanisms, the court observed that the disagreement primarily revolved around differing interpretations of historical events and could have been resolved through dialogue.
The court further noted that both sides had sufficient opportunity to engage in discussions and expressed hope that the matter could still be settled amicably.
Setting aside the proclamation, the court left it open to the parties to resolve their differences through mutual discussion and determine issues relating to village affiliation and historical interpretations outside the courtroom.