Duly appointed GBs in Nagaland has voting rights in Village Councils: HC

•    Dismisses petition challenging Old Jalukie Village Council chairman’s selection•    Rules hereditary status not mandatory for GBs’ ex-officio membershipMorung Express News Dimapur | October 14The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB)  has held that duly appointed Gaonburas (GBs) are ex-officio members of Village Councils with voting rights, irrespective of whether their positions are hereditary or not, provided they are validly recognised by the competent authority.In a judgment delivered on October 13, Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer dismissed a writ petition challenging the selection of the chairman of Old Jalukie Village Council for the 2026–2031 tenure.Why the selection was challengedThe petition was filed a former chairman of Old Jalukie Village Council who had also been selected as a new member for the 2026–2031 tenure and intended to contest for the chairmanship.The dispute arose after a meeting on March 28, 2026, convened by the Head GB of Old Jalukie, in which the newly selected Village Council members and incumbent GBs chose another as the chairman.Accordingly, the ex-chairman challenged the meeting proceedings on the ground that the GBs of Old Jalukie, belonging to the Zeliang community, held non-hereditary positions and therefore could not be treated as ex-officio members of the Village Council with voting rights.He argued that their participation in choosing the chairman violated Section 4 of the 1978 Act.The petitioner sought to prevent the State government from approving new chairman’s selection and requested a fresh meeting of the Village Council members to choose a chairman without the GBs’ participation.Petitioner’s contentionThe petitioner’s counsel argued that the GBs of Old Jalukie were not hereditary village chiefs and, under Zeliang customary practices, the office of GB was filled through appointment rather than hereditary succession.According to the petitioner, a vacancy arising from the death or resignation of a GB was filled by appointing another eligible candidate rather than passing the position to the next of kin. The GBs, therefore, could not claim ex-officio membership or voting rights under Section 4, the petitioner contended.The petitioner also challenged the State government’s clarification of October 28, 2022, which recognised GBs as ex-officio permanent members of Village Councils with voting rights. The court noted that a government order or circular cannot override statutory provisions.State government’s positionOpposing the petition, the State government submitted that GBs have long played an integral role in village administration and customary dispute resolution among the Zeliang community.It stated that village elders traditionally resolved disputes within their respective khels, while issues involving different clans or khels were settled collectively.The government argued that GBs had become integral to the customary governance framework and had routinely participated in Village Council meetings as ex-officio members with voting rights since the enactment of the 1978 Act.It further contended that Section 4 lists “hereditary village chiefs, GBs and Anghs” as ex-officio members, and that the word “hereditary” should not be read as a qualification applying to all three categories.The private respondents, including the Head GB and the selected chairman, also maintained that the selection was conducted in accordance with prevailing customary practices and the provisions of the Act.Court’s interpretation The principal question before the court was whether the word “hereditary” in Section 4 applies to all three categories - village chiefs, GBs and Anghs or only to village chiefs, leaving GBs and Anghs as separate categories entitled to ex-officio membership and voting rights.The provision states that a Village Council shall comprise members chosen by villagers according to prevailing customary practices and usages approved by the State government, while “hereditory Village Chiefs GBs and Angs” shall be ex-officio members with voting rights.The court observed that statutory interpretation cannot be determined solely by punctuation or grammatical construction. The provision must instead be read in its wider context, considering the purpose of the law and the circumstances in which it operates.It noted that hereditary succession to the office of village chief or GB is associated with customary arrangements among the Sumi Nagas, while GBs in other Naga communities are ordinarily appointed or selected on a non-hereditary basis. The court also referred to hereditary succession among the Kuki tribe.The judgment cited a 2007 Full Bench decision in Tukiye v. ADC(J), Zunheboto, which recorded the customary position among the Sumi Nagas, where the offices of village chief and Gaonbura were one and the same and hereditary.Against this background, the court observed that extending the word “hereditary” to all categories in Section 4 would effectively restrict voting rights to GBs in communities where the office is hereditary, excluding GBs appointed or selected under the customary practices of other tribes.The court also noted that non-hereditary GBs had routinely participated as voting members in Village Councils across different villages and tribal areas, a practice accepted by the State government over many years.It considered the government’s October 28, 2022 clarification and this established practice as supporting the interpretation that “hereditary” qualifies only village chiefs.Court’s conclusionThe court held that the word “hereditary” should not automatically be extended to every category appearing after it in Section 4 of the Act.It ruled that duly appointed GBs are ex-officio members of their respective Village Councils with voting rights, regardless of whether the office of GB is hereditary in the community concerned, subject to valid recognition by the competent authority.The court, however, clarified that the ruling does not confer ex-officio status on persons who have not been duly appointed or recognised as GBs, nor does it alter the distinct customary position of hereditary village chiefs or GBs under the provision.Holding that the petitioner had failed to establish grounds for interference under its writ jurisdiction, the court declined to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the petition. Any interim order was also vacated.