Moa Jamir
Dimapur | October 4
A fresh development in the sexual harassment case involving an IAS officer, the disposal of a plea by the All Nagaland PWD Field Workers Association (ANPWDFWA) over time-bound pay, and the quashing of a case related to this year’s Koridang Assembly bye-election were among the significant matters dealt with by the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench (GHCKB) this week.
IAS officer to challenge framing of charges
On September 29, the GHCKB allowed IAS officer Reny Wilfred to withdraw his criminal revision petition, granting him liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the framing of charges against him in the sexual harassment case involving women employees of the Investment & Development Authority of Nagaland (IDAN).
Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer passed the order after IAS officer’s counsel sought withdrawal of the revision with liberty to file afresh to challenge the order framing charges, which was a subsequent development after the petition was filed.
The Court accordingly allowed the withdrawal and granted liberty to file afresh, if so advised.
The revision petition, filed before the High Court in May 2026, challenged various proceedings in the case, including the dismissal of Wilfred’s discharge application and orders relating to framing of charges. An earlier High Court order records that charges were framed on May 20, 2026.
The case originated from allegations involving 10 women employees of IDAN. In December 2025, the High Court had declined to quash the criminal proceedings and charge sheet, holding that there was prima facie material warranting continuation of the case.
The Supreme Court had also dismissed Wilfred’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the December 12, 2025 judgment.
Koridang bye-election case quashed
On September 29, the GHCKB quashed the FIR, charge sheet and connected criminal proceedings in a case arising from an alleged violent incident during the 2026 Koridang Assembly constituency bye-election.
Justice Helen Daungliani passed the judgment on September 29 after the parties reached an ‘amicable settlement’.
The case arose from an FIR lodged by independent candidate Imchatoba Imchen on April 6, 2026, alleging that supporters of BJP candidate Daochir I Imchen and some members of the Mangmetong Village Council attacked houses and vehicles, with around 12 vehicles damaged, five houses vandalised and two persons assaulted.
A charge sheet was subsequently filed under various provisions of the BNS.
However, a settlement was reached at a Mangmetong Village Council meeting on May 31, 2026, with a resolution recording the settlement subsequently placed before the Court.
The resolution stated that the FIR had been lodged during the election process to ensure protection and a free and fair election, and that following the peaceful conclusion of the election, the complainant was willing to bring the criminal case to an end. A further resolution dated July 3, 2026, recorded the settlement.
The High Court, while noting that the case arose in an election context and therefore required caution, found no specific overt act attributed to the individual petitioners and described the allegations as substantially omnibus/general.
It also found no material indicating continuing threats, intimidation or interference with the electoral process after the election.
It further observed that one of the ‘peculiar facts and circumstances of the case’ was that the complainant had settled the dispute with the accused and approached the Court for setting aside the FIR and charge sheet.
Accordingly, with the absence of any independent material indicating continuing public injury or a distinct State interest requiring prosecution notwithstanding the settlement, the Court held that the continuation of the proceedings would not advance the cause of justice.
The Public Prosecutor also submitted that the Court may pass necessary orders in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS as it deemed fit.
However, the Court clarified that it was not compounding the offences, but exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court process.
It accordingly quashed the FIR, charge sheet and connected criminal proceedings insofar as they related to the petitioners.
PWD time-bound pay case
On October 1, the GHCKB closed a contempt petition filed by the ANPWDFWA after noting that the State authorities had complied with its earlier direction concerning the grant of Time-Bound Scale of Pay to workcharged employees.
The association had alleged that the authorities failed to comply with the Court’s March 23, 2023 order directing consideration of Time-Bound Scale of Pay for its members within eight months.
The State respondents submitted that the direction contained in the March 23order regarding consideration of the grant of Time-Bound Scale of Pay had been duly complied with and sought closure of the contempt petition.
Further, it was submitted to the Court that expenditure sanction of Rs 41,43,894 had been issued on June 3, 2026, towards payment of last-drawn time-bound arrears to workcharged employees for 2025-26.
However, payment was delayed after an incorrect IFSC code caused the Drawal Authority to lapse, but the error was subsequently rectified and a fresh Drawal Authority issued on September 8.
Although counsel lacked instructions on the balance arrears, Justice Nchumbemo Mozhui observed that it is a well-settled position of law that where there is even partial compliance with a Court’s order and action has been initiated by the respondents, contempt proceedings cannot proceed. “In the present case, it appears from the records that the Respondents have complied with the directions of this Court,” he observed, closing the petition.
As reported earlier, a GHCKB Division Bench on September 30 found the progress of the construction of Chakhabama–Kikrüma stretch of NH-29 Kohima–Jessami Road (Package-II) “unsatisfactory” and directed the Authority Engineer to file a comprehensive report explaining the reasons for the delay.
