On 23 May 2025, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Nagaland government to reinitiate the process for the long-standing issue of the potential recognition of Kakiho village in Nagaland, with a strict directive to complete the procedure within six months.
Kakiho village, which was established in 2007 and is located within the Dimapur district, has been seeking formal recognition from the state government for years. However, Old Jalukie village, located in the nearby Peren district, opposed this, claiming that Kakiho was founded on its ancestral land without the necessary consent or a No Objection Certificate (NOC), both of which are required under Naga customary law and State regulations.
In 2011, the state Cabinet approved the recognition of Kakiho along with 33 other villages, but the final decision was delayed owing to objections from Old Jalukie.
The Supreme Court's involvement began with a Special Leave Petition filed by the Old Jalukie Village Council (OJVC) in March 2016, which challenged a judgment by the Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) dated 7 October 2015. The High Court had ordered the state to grant immediate recognition to Kakiho village within three months.
Despite being a necessary and proper party, the OJVC argued that it was neither included nor heard in the original High Court proceedings. The Council claimed that Kakiho village was established on land that historically belonged to Old Jalukie, without the required NOC as mandated by customary Naga law and government regulations.
In its May 2025 ruling, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, set aside the High Court's decision, stating that the High Court "had not been alive to the case of the appellant," failing to consider the concerns of the OJVC adequately. The SC directed the state to "re-issue a public notice" regarding the recognition process and to "exhaustively consider all objections that may be raised from any quarter."
The Supreme Court also expressed frustration with the Nagaland government's apparent reluctance to take a definitive stance. When reserving judgment on 7 January 2025, the court noted that the state seemed "reluctant to intervene and try to resolve the dispute between the two villages." This concern was reiterated in the final order.
Initially, the Nagaland government had stalled the recognition process, citing an inter-district boundary dispute. However, the SC ruled that this boundary issue was irrelevant to the question of recognition. The court noted that objections raised by Old Jalukie in 2009 were not adequately addressed.
Additionally, the court found that the state had failed to follow the procedures outlined in two Office Memorandums (1996 and 2005), which mandate public notices, a 30-day period for objections, and NOCs from the parent and neighbouring villages.
The recognition process in Nagaland is governed by Article 371A of the Indian Constitution, which provides special protections to Naga customary practices, including land ownership and village administration. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the village recognition process must align with both statutory instruments—such as the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978—and the norms of customary law. Section 3 of the 1978 Act, which governs village recognition, requires proof of land ownership and establishment in accordance with customary usage.
The court held that the Office Memorandums from 1996 and 2005 effectively codify these customary principles, and their stipulations must be satisfied to legitimise any new village.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Demand for legal recognition of land rights
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Region Classification
Rural
Type of Land
Common
Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
"Agricultural land, Residential area"
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Constitutional Law, Other, Other, Other
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Lack of legal protection over land rights
Non-consultation with stakeholders
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Pending
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
No
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Supreme Court of India
Case Number
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9897 of 2016
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Nagaland State Government, District Adminisitration of Dimapur and Peren.
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Old Jalukie Village Council, Village representatives of Kakiho
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Sarup is a researcher and doctoral student in Political Science at the North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong. His research interests lie in the area of ethnic and land conflicts, political ecology and development and urban spaces of Northeast India. He has a Masters’ degree in Development Studies from the Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati. He has previously done research/internships with NABARD, Oxford Microfinance Initiative (renamed Oxford Development Consultancy) and CSDS (Lokniti Programme).
