Some of the significant legal matters concerning Nagaland in January included SC’s rejection of a petition against the quashing of appointments in Nagaland Police by Gauhati HC, setting of final hearing date for appeal against dog meat ban judgement and interim stay on amendments to the Nagaland Lokayukta Act 2017. (Image generated via AI: For representational purposes only)
Moa Jamir
Dimapur | January 26
The Supreme Court’s rejection of a petition against the quashing of appointments in Nagaland Police, the fixture of the final hearing date on the dog meat ban case, and issuance of an interim stay on amendments to the Nagaland Lokayukta Act are some significant legal matters concerning Nagaland so far in January.
Dog meat ban appeal
The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB) resumed hearings on January 22 regarding the appeal against a June 2, 2023 judgment that quashed the Nagaland State Government’s July 4, 2020, notification banning the commercial import, trade, and sale of dog meat.
During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General informed the Bench of a communication from the Secretary in-Charge of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly and requested more time to file an affidavit.
Counsel for the petitioners - People for Animals (PFA), Humane Society International/India (HSI), and Akhil Bharat Krushi Go Seva Sangh- also sought time for an additional affidavit.
The Division Bench scheduled the final hearing for March 5 and directed both parties to submit their affidavits beforehand.
SC finality on police appointment case
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on January 21 dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the GHCKB’s September 2024 ruling quashing the appointment of 935 police constables and 40 Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors (SIs and ASIs) in the Nagaland Police.
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court," read the short order passed by the Bench of Justices BR Gavai, Augustine George Masih, and K Vinod Chandran.
An appeal regarding the judgment concerning 40 SIs and ASIs, passed on September 26, 2024, is also currently pending in the GHCKB. It must be noted here that two petitioners were granted reprieve from the GHCKB in a review petition, leaving 38 cases still pending.
‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ reiterated
On January 15, the Supreme Court dismissed another SLP challenging the February 6, 2024 verdict of the GHCKB, upholding an earlier direction by a single judge to regularise a work charge employee.
However, the Bench noted that the questions of law raised by the Advocate-on-Record representing Nagaland were "kept open for being considered in an appropriate case."
In its verdict, the GHCKB Division Bench cited the "equal pay for equal work" principle from the Jagjit Singh case and other relevant rulings.
The case involved a work charge employee, appointed on August 31, 1984, in the Public Health Engineering department, who was released from service on September 30, 2019, after over 35 years of service.
He had submitted requests on September 7, 2015, for salary upgradation from fixed pay to scale pay, and for regularisation of his service by August 8, 2019, but both were not addressed, leading him to approach the Court.
Taking cue from the SC’s January 15 verdict and other legal precedents, Justice Saikia on January 21 directed the State respondent to regularise the service of another petitioner within four months on the receipt of the Court’s order.
This should be done to ensure the petitioner enjoys pension and other related benefits after his years of dedicated service to the State, he held.
The case concerned a Work-Charge Semi-Skilled labourer in PHED on a fixed pay of Rs 490 per month, who retired after serving continuously over 29 years and 5 months on September 30, 2017, upon reaching 60 years of age.
Following the SC’s January 15 verdict and legal precedents, Justice Saikia on January 21 directed the State to regularise the service of another petitioner within four months of receiving the Court's order, saying it would ensure the petitioner receives pension and other benefits after years of dedicated service.
The case involved a Work-Charge Semi-Skilled labourer in PHED, paid Rs 490 per month, who retired after over 29 years and 5 months of continuous service on September 30, 2017, at the age of 60. The order stated,“At this stage, the petitioner is not fit to be employed elsewhere. The act of the State is a violation of natural justice.
PILs on NH-29 & Meluri
On January 22, the GHCKB Division Bench issued several orders in the suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding the construction of the Kohima-Dimapur four-lane section of National Highway-29.
It directed the Deputy Commissioner of Chümoukedima to file an affidavit on land acquisition steps for the ‘Pagla Pahar’ stretch riverbank expansion and to explain the actions taken to clear the landslide near Pherima Village.
Regarding the sinking area at Dzüdza, the NHIDCL Authority Engineer informed the Bench that a Geo-Technical Report is expected soon, and the next steps would be taken based on the pile foundation report.
The Deputy Commissioner of Kohima was also instructed to address debris removal at Zubza, while the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH), was reminded to maintain the road condition on the Kohima Municipal dump stretch for smooth traffic movement.
M/S Quinker Enterprises, tasked with restoring the damaged KMC stretch and clearing landslides, was impleaded in the case, with the next hearing scheduled in three weeks.
In the PIL regarding two road projects under the Meluri division of Phek district, the counsel for M/S Rhino Construction and Agency submitted that the roadwork had been completed, and an Interlocutory Application (IA) had been filed.
However, the counsel for the petitioners stated that they had received the IA copy only on the same day and requested time to review it.The Bench listed the matter for further hearing on February 5.
Nagaland Lokayukta amendment stayed
In a significant development, the Division Bench of Justice Saikia and Justice Habung also issued an interim order staying the operation of the two amendments made to the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017.
Writing the order, Justice Saikia stated that after hearing both sides, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioners deserved to be granted an interim order.
The Court issued notices returnable in four weeks and stayed the operation of the amendments to the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, as incorporated in the Nagaland Lokayukta (First Amendment) Act, 2019, and the Nagaland Lokayukta (Second Amendment) Act, 2022. The amendments included appointment procedures and eligibility criteria for Lokayukta, filing of vacancy occurring in the office of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, term of offices and removal; Power of the State Government to make Rule; Power to relax and holding of sitting of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta.
Another Division Bench of Justice Manish Choudhury and Justice Devashis Baruah on January 21 quashed a detention order issued by the Special Secretary, Home Department, on May 30, 2024, under the PIT NDPS Act, which detained a person for three months.
The Court noted that the order and supporting documents were provided in English, a language the detenu didn’t understand, with contents explained in Nagamese/Manipuri.
The failure to supply translated copies in a language the detenu understood violated her fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 3(3) of the PIT NDPS Act, it held.
Consequently, the detention order was deemed invalid, and the detenu was ordered to be released unless detained for another case.
.jpg)
