In a clash between the Indian Judiciary and Naga Customary Law, the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has quashed a social boycott announced by a village council.
In yet another clash between the Indian Judiciary and Naga Customary Law, the Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court has quashed a non-cooperation proclamation issued by the Chungtia Village Council in Mokokchung district against one K Tia Longkumer over an article published in a local newspaper last year. Taking exception to his write-up offering ‘corrective suggestions’ regarding historical facts surrounding the advent of Christianity in Nagaland, the village council directed him to withdraw his articles besides repeatedly summoning him for discussions. Following his refusal to cooperate with the directive, the village council declared that no citizen of Chungtia village should cooperate with him. Longkumer challenged this ruling before the court, contending that social ostracism amounts to a violation of his constitutional rights. Hearing the case earlier this week, the High Court observed that social boycott or denial of cooperation can adversely affect an individual from accessing essential services and the right to live with dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Such clashes are not new. In 2019, the High Court delivered a landmark judgment in Mangyang Lima v. State of Nagaland, ruling that customary bodies cannot impose social boycotts or excommunication on individuals for defying political decisions, in violation of fundamental rights. A similar verdict was passed in T Chalukumba Ao vs. State of Nagaland in 2024, quashing a village authority’s resolution to boycott anyone opposing its consensus candidate for the state assembly elections. The existence of parallel legal systems operating in Naga society has led to these conflicts, and it is becoming more evident. On one hand, Article 371A of the Indian Constitution provides special provisions with respect to Naga customary law, mandating that no Act of Parliament can override its decisions whether in civil or criminal justice, unless the state's Legislative Assembly decides otherwise through a resolution. On the other hand, the Indian judiciary has sent out a clear message through its court rulings that basic human rights and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution of India can’t be trampled upon in the name of Naga customs and traditions.
Jurisdictional tension between existing parallel legal systems is inevitable as society progresses and interpretations of laws evolve. What was once considered right and practices associated with bravery and prestige can shift dramatically as understanding of human rights deepens and perspectives change, as was the case of the headhunting practice among the Nagas. While Naga customary law can play a significant role in resolving various civil matters and conflicts, ensuring timely justice, and reducing the burden on the Indian judiciary, it is ill-equipped to deal with criminal cases such as murder, rape, kidnapping, etc. Unlike the Indian legal framework, which is governed by the Indian Penal Code and other established acts for criminal cases, Naga customary law primarily relies on a restorative justice system that is vulnerable to the subjective interpretation of village leaders. Justice can vary between regions, tribes, and villages as customary law is uncodified, creating room for bias. Therefore, the way forward is to align Naga customary laws and traditions with modern legal frameworks, without undermining their cultural significance. Laws should be governed by the Rule of Law, based on the principles of human rights, dignity, and equality.