Introduction:

In the matter titled The Kuki Inpi Nagaland and 3 Ors. v. State of Nagaland & 5 Ors. [WP(C)/72/2025], the Gauhati High Court, in an interim relief, stayed for three weeks the enumeration exercise ordered by the Nagaland Government targeting specific tribal groups to determine eligibility for Indigenous Inhabitant Certificates (IIC) or Permanent Resident Certificates (PRC). Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer was hearing the writ petition filed by four prominent tribal bodies—Kuki Inpi Nagaland, Nagaland Garo Tribal Council, Kachari Tribal Council Nagaland, and the Karbi Union Nagaland—challenging the Home Department’s orders dated September 20 and October 1, 2024. These orders initiated an enumeration process exclusively for the Garo, Kuki, Kachari, and Mikir (Karbi) communities, along with the Nepali/Gorkha populations residing in Nagaland before December 1, 1963. The petitioners contended that this move was arbitrary, discriminatory, and devoid of legislative competence as they had already been notified as Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1970, and should be treated on par with other Scheduled Tribes of Nagaland.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners vehemently argued that the enumeration exercise initiated through the Home Department’s notification dated September 20, 2024 and reinforced by another dated October 1, 2024, unfairly targeted their communities by singling them out for scrutiny regarding their indigenous status, thereby potentially stripping them of rights and privileges already guaranteed under the Constitution. They stressed that the communities in question—Garo, Kuki, Kachari, and Mikir (Karbi)—have long been recognised as Scheduled Tribes under the 1970 order, and the move to verify their status contradicted the constitutional safeguards and amounted to an act without authority or jurisdiction. The petitioners further highlighted that the process had not commenced despite the published schedule and that no steps had been taken by the authorities until the filing of the writ, indicating a lack of urgency or procedural fairness. They sought a stay on the enumeration pending final adjudication of the writ. On the other hand, the State, represented by the learned Additional Advocate General, accepted notice but sought time to file a detailed response. The State refrained from justifying the rationale behind targeting specific tribes, instead requesting the Court for three weeks to respond. Acknowledging the serious implications of the impugned orders and the prima facie case made out by the petitioners, Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer directed that no further steps be taken in the enumeration process for the next three weeks.

Judgement:

The Court ordered the matter to be listed after three weeks and allowed the State the liberty to file its affidavit-in-opposition, if advised. Importantly, the Court instructed that until the matter is heard next, the State shall refrain from initiating any exercise about the enumeration, thereby effectively halting the implementation of the challenged notifications.