IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that village institutions, such as Village Councils, are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It also emphasizes the limitations on the exercise of rights under Article 19 and the prohibition of imposing excommunication or banishment by any body or entity.

JUDGMENT :

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the writ petitioner to assail two orders – Order dated 16.02.2023 and Order dated 30.06.2023 – passed by the respondent no. 4, that is, the Chungtia Medemchanger Putu Menden, District – Mokokchung. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent no. 3, that is, the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung to initiate proper action against the respondent nos. 5 to 18 as provided under the law. The respondent nos. 5 to 18 are members in the Chungtia Medemchanger Putu Menden, that is, the respondent no. 4.

2. By the Order dated 16.02.2023, the respondent no. 4 had inter alia debarred the petitioner from being a part of Chungtia Village temporarily on the ground that the petitioner did not act in the best interests of the Chungtia Village. By the subsequent Order dated 30.06.2023, the petitioner was excommunicated from Chungtia Village citizenship for his lifetime with the allegation that the petitioner had acted in contravention of the customary practices of the Chungtia Medemchanger Putu Menden. The Order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4 was published in a local newspaper, Tir Yimyim in its issue dated 02.07.2023, for wide publicity.

3. The petitioner has asserted that he is a native of Chungtia Village under District – Mokokchung and belongs to Scheduled Tribe. In order to stand in the General Election to the Nagaland Legislative Assembly, held on 28.02.2023, as a Member of Legislative Assembly [MLA] from the 28th Koridang Assembly Constituency, the petitioner submitted his nomination papers as a Janata Dal [United] candidate. The petitioner was found himself aggrieved by the alleged action of the respondent no. 4, when he was not extended similar benefit like another candidate who stood against the petitioner in the same General Election. Though many other aspects are mentioned in the writ petition, the same are found not necessary to reproduce herein, save and except the relevant facts. But in the Election, the petitioner did not emerge as the returned candidate.

4. As mentioned above, the Order dated 16.02.2023 was passed under the signatures of the members of the respondent no. 4, Chungtia Medemchanger Putu Menden. By the said Order, the petitioner had been informed that his alleged acts were not found in the best interests of Chungtia Medemchanger Putu Menden. Therefore, the Chungtia Medemchanger Putu Menden had taken a decision to debar the petitioner from being a part of Chungtia village temporarily. By the subsequent Order dated 30.06.2023, the petitioner has been debarred and excommunicated from the citizenship of Chungtia Village for his lifetime and it has thereby, been informed that any household that harbours/welcomes the petitioner within Chungtia Village shall be locked. In the said Order dated 30.06.2023, the respondent nos. 5 to 18 had subscribed their signatures, meaning thereby, the decision to excommunicate the petitioner by the respondent no. 4, Chungtia Medemchanger Putu Menden, also referred to as the Chungtia Village Council, was a collective decision taken by the respondent nos. 5 to 18 as the members of the respondent no. 4 Village Council.

5. I have heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3; and Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 18.

6. Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 4, Chungtia Village Council is a statutory body under the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 [‘the Act’, for short] and its powers and duties have been defined in the said Act. It is his contention that a Village Council like the respondent no. 4 -Chungtia Village Council, does not have any power, authority and jurisdiction to pass any order to excommunicate any inhabitant of the areas within such Village Council either temp