Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice in Arunachal Pradesh Customary Courts: Commentary on Rippe Mayi v. Tumli Nyorak / Mayi & Anr, 2025 GAU-AP 1326

Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice in Arunachal Pradesh Customary Courts: A Commentary on Rippe Mayi v. Tumli Nyorak / Mayi & Anr, 2025 GAU-AP 1326

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the decision of the Gauhati High Court (Arunachal Pradesh Bench) in Rippe Mayi v. Tumli Nyorak / Mayi & Anr, CRP/70/2025, decided on 26 November 2025 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Budi Habung (2025:GAU-AP:1326).

The case is significant because it clarifies the standards of procedural fairness and natural justice that must be observed by customary courts (Kebang) in Arunachal Pradesh, even when they function under indigenous norms and practices. It also clearly articulates:

  • the limits on enlarging or altering the composition of a customary forum after hearing has concluded;
  • the impermissibility of backdating decisions; and
  • the requirement that ex parte decisions in customary forums comply with Section 44(1) of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.

The case arises from a family dispute over inheritance of ancestral land known as “Kesa Rike” in West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, and involves the interaction between:

  • customary forums (village and Bango-level Kebang), and
  • the supervisory and revisional jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 115 CPC.

Though the High Court does not decide who is entitled to “Kesa Rike”, it lays down important procedural norms for customary courts and reinforces the availability of civil court remedies under the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021.

2. Factual Background and Key Issues

2.1 Factual Matrix

  1. On 28.05.2022, the father of the petitioner (and grandfather of the respondent) made a declaration that:
    whosoever takes care of him till his death, shall be entitled to his land known as “Kesa Rike”.
  2. The respondent, being the son of the petitioner’s deceased elder brother, claims he fulfilled this condition by looking after his grandfather until his death.
  3. The petitioner opposed this arrangement and on 22.06.2022 lodged a complaint before the Head Gaon Burah (HGB). According to the petitioner, this complaint was not decided during the father’s lifetime.
  4. After the father’s death on 03.03.2025, the petitioner filed another complaint before the HGB, seeking division of the father’s properties among all brothers.
  5. By order dated 19.04.2025, the Customary Court (Kebang) divided the properties and controversially allotted “Kesa Rike” to the petitioner, ignoring the father’s earlier declaration.
  6. The respondent appealed to the Inter-Village Territorial (Apex) Customary Court (Bango-level Keba), Ubo Bango Circle. On 29.05.2025, this forum delivered a split decision (7:7).
  7. Being unable to reach a conclusion, the Keba issued a Re-Parwana (fresh summons) fixing 09.06.2025 for further hearing and enlarged the forum by appointing three additional HGBs.
  8. The petitioner objected to:
    • the fresh Re-Parwana, and
    • the appointment of the new HGB members after the split verdict.
    He indicated that he would not attend the re-hearing.
  9. On 09.06.2025, the Bango Kebang decided the matter in the petitioner’s absence, but retrospectively recorded the date of the decision as 29.05.2025. The petitioner alleges that:
    • only those members who had earlier supported the respondent participated and signed, and
    • newly added members took part despite not having heard the earlier proceedings.

2.2 Issues before the High Court

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 and Section 115 CPC, challenging the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court’s decision. The core issues were:

  1. Whether the Bango-level Keba’s procedure—
    • enlarging the forum after the matter had been fully heard and a split verdict recorded,
    • allowing newly added members to participate in deciding the same matter, and
    • backdating the decision from 09.06.2025 to 29.05.2025—
    was valid under:
    • customary law and practices, and
    • the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.
  2. Whether deciding the appeal in the petitioner’s absence amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of Section 44(1) of the 1945 Regulation governing ex parte decisions.
  3. What remedial directions should be issued:
    • Should the matter be remanded to a customary forum?
    • Should parties be directed to approach a civil court?
    • Can they choose between these avenues?

3. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the impugned decision of the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court (Bango-level Keba), Ubo Bango Circle, dated 09.06.2025 (shown as 29.05.2025).

The Court held in substance that:

  • Enlarging the strength of the customary court’s forum after the conclusion of hearing and then deciding the matter without a fresh hearing, while backdating the decision, is contrary to both:
    • customary practices, and
    • the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.
  • Passing a decision in the absence of a party—when the earlier proceeding had already ended in a split decision (7:7)—amounts to a violation of natural justice.
  • The impugned order is therefore unsustainable and must be set aside.

Regarding the future course of action, the Court held:

  • Either party shall be at liberty to approach:
    • the competent Civil Court under the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, for setting aside or fresh adjudication of the dispute, or
    • alternatively, the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court or the Apex customary Court, as competent under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.
  • The competent forum, when approached, must:
    • issue notice to both parties,
    • provide reasonable opportunity of hearing,
    • record evidence if required, and
    • deliver a reasoned order within a reasonable period of time.
  • The High Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims to “Kesa Rike”. All substantive questions about ownership and possession remain open.

4. Precedents and Statutory Framework

4.1 Absence of Cited Case Law and Reliance on Normative Principles

The judgment does not rely on or cite specific reported precedents. Instead, it is primarily grounded in:

  • the text and spirit of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945,
  • the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021, and
  • broad, well-established constitutional principles of natural justice and fair procedure.

This is noteworthy: the Court is not engaged in technical doctrinal citation, but rather in normative supervision of customary justice, ensuring that customary forums conform to minimal standards of fairness and legality.

4.2 Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945

The 1945 Regulation is the central legal framework governing justice administration in certain frontier areas including present-day Arunachal Pradesh. The judgment, through counsel’s arguments and the Court’s reasoning, highlights in particular Section 44(1), which regulates ex parte decisions by customary forums.

From the text of the judgment, Section 44(1) is understood as providing that:

An ex-parte decision can be rendered by a customary court only after a party has willfully remained absent on three consecutive occasions with 30-day intervals, after being given due opportunity of hearing.

The decision in Rippe Mayi implicitly upholds and enforces this safeguard by indicating that:

  • the petitioner’s representative did attend the hearing on 29.05.2025;
  • the case ended in a split decision on that date; and
  • thereafter, the matter could not lawfully be decided ex parte on 09.06.2025 without compliance with the Section 44(1) standard.

4.3 Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021

The Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 (as amended) provides a modern statutory framework for the establishment and functioning of civil courts in the State. The High Court expressly relies on this Act to:

  • affirm that civil courts have jurisdiction over disputes such as the present one; and
  • grant parties express liberty to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of the land dispute.

This is important because it marks a clear recognition that:

  • customary forums are not the only avenue for adjudicating such property disputes; and
  • litigants may seek the protection of formal civil courts where customary procedures appear defective or rights are inadequately protected.

4.4 Constitutional and Procedural Framework: Article 227 and Section 115 CPC

The petitioner invoked:

  • Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which confers on High Courts the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction; and
  • Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for revisional powers over subordinate courts in specified circumstances.

While the Court does not undertake a detailed doctrinal survey of Article 227 jurisprudence, its exercise of jurisdiction confirms that:

  • customary courts (Kebang and Bango-level forums), when functioning as dispute-resolution bodies recognized by law, are subject to supervisory control of the High Court; and
  • their decisions can be interfered with where there is a:
    • gross violation of procedure,
    • departure from statutory safeguards, or
    • denial of natural justice.

5. Legal Reasoning and Core Principles

5.1 Enlargement of the Forum after Conclusion of Hearing

A central aspect of the Court’s reasoning is captured in paragraph 13 of the judgment:

“It is evident from the record that the Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court initially gave a split verdict(7:7) on 29.05.2025 and thereafter, the strength of the forum was enlarged by adding three more HGBs. Such enlargement of the forum after conclusion of hearing and retrospective dating of a later decision without further hearing, cannot be accepted, either, under the customary practices, or, the Assam Frontier(Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.”

This passage establishes two clear principles:

  1. No Enlargement after Conclusion of Hearing:
    Once a matter has been fully heard and deliberated upon, and a decision (including a split decision) has been reached by the existing panel, the composition of the forum cannot be expanded for the purpose of deciding the same matter without restarting the process.
  2. No Retrospective Dating without Fresh Hearing:
    A decision taken on a later date (09.06.2025) cannot lawfully be:
    • backdated to the earlier date (29.05.2025), and
    • treated as an extension of the earlier proceedings,
    especially where the composition of the forum has changed and no fresh hearing has taken place.

These rules mirror well-known principles applicable to formal courts: new judges or members who were not part of the hearing are not supposed to participate in the decision unless:

  • they have heard the matter afresh, or
  • they have, at minimum, access to the complete record and the parties are heard again in their presence.

By extending these principles to customary courts, the High Court effectively harmonizes customary adjudication with broader standards of fair procedure.

5.2 Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Paragraph 14 succinctly articulates the natural justice defect:

“The impugned procedure adopted by the Keba/Customary Court amounts to a violation of natural justice. Passing a decision in the absence of one party, especially, when the previous proceeding had concluded with a split decision, renders the order unsustainable in law.”

The violation is twofold:

  1. One-sided Proceeding after Split Verdict:
    After a fully contested hearing and a deadlock (7:7), any subsequent process aimed at resolving that deadlock must provide both sides a fair opportunity to:
    • address the enlarged forum, and
    • respond to any new issues or perspectives that might arise due to the new members.
    Proceeding in the absence of one side (particularly when that side had been participating until then) is inherently unfair.
  2. Improper Use of Ex Parte Mechanism:
    The High Court accepts the petitioner’s contention that Section 44(1) of the 1945 Regulation permits an ex parte decision only after three consecutive absences with 30-day intervals. Here:
    • the petitioner’s side was present on 29.05.2025, and
    • there is no suggestion of three consecutive defaults as required by law.
    Thus, declaring or treating the 09.06.2025 decision as valid despite the petitioner’s non-appearance is contrary to the statutory safeguard.

5.3 Neutrality on Merits and Focus on Procedure

In paragraph 20, the Court is careful to state:

“It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties. All issues concerning ownership and possession of the land 'Kesa Rike' are left open to be decided, afresh, in accordance with law and prevailing custom.”

Thus, the judgment is strictly procedural in nature. The High Court:

  • does not decide who, under customary or general law, is entitled to “Kesa Rike”; and
  • only determines that the pathway by which the Bango-level Keba arrived at its decision was legally flawed.

This restrained approach respects:

  • the primary role of customary forums and/or civil courts in fact-finding and determination of substantive rights; and
  • the High Court’s supervisory role as one concerned chiefly with the regularity and fairness of proceedings.

5.4 Remedial Directions and Forum Choice

Paragraphs 18 and 19 provide a nuanced remedial framework:

“Consequently, either party shall be at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court under the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 (amended from time to time), for setting aside, or, fresh adjudication of the dispute relating to a plot of land i.e. 'Kesa Rike'; or, in the alternative, either party may also approach the Inter Village Territorial Customary Court, or, the Apex customary Court as may be competent under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.”

and

“The competent forum, upon receiving such reference or appeal, shall issue notice to both parties; provide reasonable opportunity of hearing; record evidence if required; and deliver a reasoned order within a reasonable period of time.”

Key elements of the remedial architecture:

  1. Liberty of Choice of Forum:
    The parties are expressly allowed to choose between:
    • a civil court, and
    • a customary court (Inter-Village Territorial or Apex Customary Court).
    This flexibility recognizes that:
    • some disputes may be better suited to culturally grounded customary resolution, while
    • others may require the procedural safeguards and enforceability of civil courts.
  2. Imposition of Minimum Procedural Standards:
    Regardless of forum choice, the High Court mandates that the forum must:
    • give notice to both parties,
    • provide reasonable hearing opportunities,
    • record evidence if necessary, and
    • deliver a reasoned order.
    The requirement of a reasoned order is particularly important—it aligns customary decision-making with general judicial standards of transparency and accountability.

6. Impact and Significance

6.1 Strengthening Procedural Safeguards in Customary Courts

The most direct impact of the judgment is on how Kebang and Bango-level customary courts conduct their proceedings in Arunachal Pradesh. Key norms emerging from this decision include:

  • Stability of Forum Composition:
    Once a matter is heard and reserved for decision (or reaches a split verdict), the composition of the forum should not be altered for the purpose of breaking the deadlock without a fresh hearing in the presence of all parties.
  • Prohibition of Backdating Decisions:
    Customary forums cannot legitimize later decisions by retrospectively assigning an earlier date—especially where the bench composition has changed or where one side was absent. This undercuts any temptation to “regularize” an irregular process by merely manipulating the date.
  • Adherence to Statutory Ex Parte Standards:
    Section 44(1) of the 1945 Regulation must be strictly observed. One or two absences, especially after active participation, cannot be used to justify an ex parte judgment.

6.2 Affirmation of High Court Supervisory Jurisdiction over Customary Forums

The judgment reinforces that:

  • customary forums recognized under the 1945 Regulation are, for the purpose of procedural oversight, treated as subordinate courts/tribunals; and
  • their decisions are subject to correction in revision or superintendence where there is manifest procedural illegality or denial of natural justice.

This has systemic implications:

  • litigants have a constitutional safety net against arbitrary or unfair procedures in customary courts; and
  • customary forums are encouraged to conform to basic legal standards without losing their cultural distinctiveness in substantive matters.

6.3 Recognition of Concurrent Avenues: Customary vs. Civil Courts

By granting parties the option to approach either:

  • a civil court, or
  • a customary court,

the High Court tacitly endorses a form of concurrent or alternative jurisdiction. The impact is:

  • individuals dissatisfied with procedural lapses in customary forums can seek justice in the regular court system; and
  • the civil courts, when seized of such matters, must balance respect for customary norms with the duty to uphold statutory and constitutional rights.

6.4 Development of a Procedural Precedent

Although the case does not rely on precedents, it itself creates an authoritative reference point for future disputes involving:

  • split decisions in customary forums;
  • post-hearing changes to bench composition; and
  • the use of ex parte decisions where one party stops attending.

Subsequent litigants and courts are likely to invoke Rippe Mayi when arguing that:

  • customary justice must be administered in a manner compatible with natural justice; and
  • Article 227 can be invoked to correct serious procedural irregularities, even where the dispute arises from purely customary or family arrangements.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

7.1 Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Article 227 gives every High Court the power to supervise all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. In simple terms:

  • The High Court can step in when a lower court or tribunal (including a customary forum recognized by law) makes a decision in a manner that is:
    • illegal,
    • grossly unfair, or
    • in clear violation of procedure.
  • It is not an appeal (where the entire case is re-heard), but a more limited power to correct serious errors.

7.2 Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – Revisional Jurisdiction

Section 115 CPC empowers High Courts to revise certain orders of subordinate courts when:

  • the court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law;
  • or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
  • acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

In this case, Section 115 is invoked alongside Article 227 to emphasize that the High Court is concerned with the legality and regularity of the customary court’s procedure, not with re-deciding the factual dispute.

7.3 Customary Courts: Kebang, Bango-level Court, and HGBs

  • Kebang (Customary Court):
    A traditional village-level council or court that decides disputes according to local customs and practices. It is often informal in setting, but recognized in law within the framework of the 1945 Regulation.
  • Inter-Village Territorial/Bango-level Keba:
    A higher-level customary forum comprising representatives (such as Head Gaon Burahs) from multiple villages within a Bango (a territorial cluster of villages). It functions as an appellate or apex forum relative to the village Kebang.
  • Head Gaon Burah (HGB):
    A traditional village head recognized by the administration, who also serves as a member of customary forums. HGBs are important adjudicators in customary justice systems.

7.4 Ex Parte Decision

An ex parte decision is a judgment made in the absence of one party. Under Section 44(1) of the 1945 Regulation (as understood from the judgment):

  • such a decision can be made only if a party has remained absent on three consecutive occasions with at least 30 days between each date;
  • and the party must have been given a fair opportunity to attend.

The idea is to prevent one party from abusing the process by repeatedly staying away, while still protecting parties from having their rights decided against them without reasonable chance to be heard.

7.5 Natural Justice

“Natural justice” refers to basic rules of fair decision-making. The two core rules are:

  1. Right to be heard (audi alteram partem):
    Everyone affected by a decision must have a fair chance to present their case, know the case against them, and respond to it.
  2. Rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua):
    The decision-maker must be impartial and must not have any personal interest in the outcome.

In this case, the High Court is primarily concerned with the first rule—the petitioner was effectively denied a fair hearing in the second phase of the Bango-level Keba’s proceedings.

7.6 Backdating of Decisions

Backdating means recording a decision as if it were taken on an earlier date than the actual date of decision. This is problematic because:

  • it can mask procedural irregularities (such as a changed bench or absence of a party);
  • it may affect appeal or limitation periods; and
  • it undermines transparency and trust in the adjudicatory process.

The High Court’s disapproval of backdating in this case underscores that decision dates must truthfully reflect when and how the decision was made.

8. Conclusion

Rippe Mayi v. Tumli Nyorak / Mayi & Anr is a landmark in the procedural regulation of customary courts in Arunachal Pradesh. Even though the High Court refrains from deciding the underlying inheritance dispute over “Kesa Rike”, it decisively holds that:

  • Customary forums must operate within the bounds of:
    • the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, and
    • the broader principles of natural justice.
  • Enlarging the strength of a customary court after the conclusion of hearing, and then deciding the matter in the absence of one party while backdating the decision, is impermissible.
  • Ex parte decisions must conform strictly to the safeguards of Section 44(1) of the 1945 Regulation.
  • Parties retain the freedom to seek redress either before:
    • customary forums (Kebang/Bango-level Apex Courts), or
    • the regular civil courts under the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021.
  • Whichever forum is chosen, it must:
    • give notice to both parties,
    • afford a fair hearing,
    • record evidence where appropriate, and
    • render a reasoned decision within a reasonable time.

In the broader legal context, this judgment underscores that customary justice and formal legal systems are not in conflict, but must be harmonized through adherence to minimum procedural standards. The High Court acts as a constitutional guardian, ensuring that even deeply rooted indigenous mechanisms of dispute resolution respect fundamental requirements of fairness, transparency, and legality.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Gauhati High Court

Judge(s)

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

Advocates

Comments