The recent events surrounding the 28 Koridang (ST) Assembly Constituency bye-election serve as a reminder of the persistent challenges facing the democratic process in Nagaland. The initial barring of an independent candidate from declaring his candidature in his own village, followed by the circulation of a village council letter urging support for a “consensus candidate,” reveals an unsettling pattern that undermines the very foundation of electoral democracy. While the district administration’s swift intervention led to a resolution, the incident underscores the urgent need for a deeper reckoning with practices that weaken the constitutional right to free and fair elections.
At the center of this issue lies the unlawful practice of declaring “consensus candidate” by village councils and range organisations. Such actions, often justified under the guise of maintaining unity or upholding traditional decision-making, are fundamentally at odds with the ideals of representative democracy. The assertion that a body can anoint a single candidate and, by extension, discourage or intimidate others from contesting or campaigning, constitutes a direct assault on the rights guaranteed under Article 326 of the Constitution, which ensures elections based on adult voting rights and the freedom of choice.
The legal structure is unquestionable on this matter. The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) explicitly prohibits any action that interferes with the free exercise of electoral rights. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides clear classifications for such interference. Section 171C, which defines undue influence, makes it an offense to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right through threats, coercion, or restraint. When a village council uses its official authority to bar a candidate or direct its members to support a specific individual, it creates an environment of pressure that can amount to wrongful restraint and confinement, offenses detailed under Sections 339 and 340 of the IPC.
Furthermore, the use of official village council letterheads to endorse a particular candidate is a blatant violation of the Nagaland Village Council Act, 1978. As the Deputy Commissioner rightly pointed out, village councils are auxiliary to the administration and are bound by law to remain politically neutral. Their function is to serve as institutions of local governance, not as political action committees. When they issue directives on official stationery urging support for one candidate over others, they misuse their statutory authority and risk alienating community members who may hold different political views.
The judiciary has also spoken clearly on this issue. The Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court, in its ruling concerning the 2023 Assembly elections, set a firm precedent by quashing a village council resolution that supported a single candidate and debarred others. The court described such actions as “a very disturbing fact” that violates a citizen’s right to participate freely in the electoral process.
This judgment reaffirms that no institution, traditional or otherwise, can overtake the constitutional rights of individuals.
The intervention by the Mokokchung district administration in the recent case was commendable. By summoning the village council, clarifying the illegality of their actions and securing a formal withdrawal of the objection and a No Objection Certificate, the authorities demonstrated how administrative vigilance could correct course. The cautioning against the use of official letterheads for political endorsement and the directive to provide 48 hours’ prior intimation for programmes are necessary steps. However, such reactive measures, while effective in this instance, should not be the sole recourse.
What is required is a proactive, sustained campaign to educate traditional institutions and the public about the legal boundaries of election conduct. The fact that 17 out of 30 polling stations in Koridang have been categorised as “critical” and 13 as “vulnerable” speaks to the underlying tensions that such practices can exploit. While the deployment of additional security forces, sector magistrates, and CCTV surveillance is essential for maintaining order, the ultimate safeguard lies in the internalisation of democratic norms by community leaders.
The declaration of “consensus candidate” by village bodies must be, therefore recognised for what it is: an electoral offense that promotes undue influence, and in many cases, seeks to promote enmity between communities. Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC, along with Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, make such divisive actions punishable. The repeated notifications issued by Deputy Commissioners across the state, cautioning against these practices, indicate a widespread pattern that demands consistent and strict enforcement.
As the electorate of Koridang prepares to vote on April 9, the hope is that the lessons from this incident will resonate far beyond a single constituency. The foundation of a healthy democracy is the assurance that every citizen can exercise their franchise freely, without fear of coercion or retribution. Village councils, as pillars of Naga society, have a crucial role to play in ensuring peaceful elections. However, their role must be that of facilitators of a free process, not arbiters of political choice. Upholding the law is not a challenge to tradition but a reaffirmation of the constitutional rights that ultimately empower every individual voter.
