Morung Express News
Kohima | March 11
The Gauhati High Court has declined to adjudicate on the constitutional validity of the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012 and the related Rules of 2012, holding that the core dispute concerns legislative competence between the Union of India and the State of Nagaland and therefore falls outside the scope of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
In a judgment reserved on November 20, 2025 and delivered on March 10, a Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Manish Choudhury closed the PIL without entering into the merits of the case, while granting liberty to the Union Government to challenge the regulations through appropriate legal proceedings.
Case Background
As per the Court’s records, the case initially originated from a PIL filed before the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench by Lotho Hoho and two others seeking to quash the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations & Rules 2012 and related actions including the invitation of expressions of interest and the grant of exploration permits.
The petitioners had also sought directions for the authorities to act strictly in accordance with Article 371A of the Constitution and to ensure consultation with affected landowners.
After the original petitioners sought withdrawal of the case in 2019, the court converted it into a suo motu PIL and by order dated 03.01.2020, it was transferred to the Principal Seat in Gauhati.
Issue of Legislative competence
During the proceedings, the central question that emerged was whether the Nagaland Legislative Assembly had the authority under Article 371A of the Constitution to enact laws regulating petroleum and natural gas, given that the regulation and development of mineral oil is placed under Entry 53 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule.
The Union of India argued that the State lacked legislative competence to enact the 2012 regulations because the field is already governed by the Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, a central law.
On the other hand, the State of Nagaland maintained that Article 371A protects the ownership and transfer of land and its resources in Nagaland and provides the State Assembly the authority to determine whether parliamentary laws relating to such matters apply within the State.
Among others, it further argued that this constitutional protection stems from the State’s unique historical and political context, particularly the 16-Point Agreement that preceded the creation of Nagaland and led to the insertion of Article 371A, which recognises the customary ownership of land and resources by the Naga people.
HC leaves constitutional question to SC
The High Court, however, held that the dispute essentially involves a constitutional conflict between the Union Government and the State of Nagaland regarding legislative powers.
“Under the facts of this case, there is a strong dispute between the Union Government and the State of Nagaland relating to enactment of the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012, and the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules, 2012 framed thereunder,” it noted.
The real issue in the case was whether the Nagaland Legislative Assembly had the legislative competence under Article 371A of the Constitution to enact the 2012 Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012, even though the power to legislate on petroleum and mineral oil falls under Entry 53 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule, it stated.
Accordingly, the Court held that the dispute is “squarely covered within the meaning and scope of Clause (a) of Article 131 of the Constitution of India,” and therefore falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which adjudicates disputes between the Union and the States.
The question of PIL
The Bench also clarified that that the matter was not suitable for adjudication through a PIL as its jurisdiction is primarily meant for cases involving violations of fundamental rights of disadvantaged groups or issues affecting the public at large.
The issue raised in the case, the Court noted, concerns legislative competence and constitutional interpretation, rather than deprivation of fundamental rights.
“The issue raised relates to legislative competence and does not involve curtailment and/or deprivation of any fundamental right of a citizen,” the judgment stated.
The Union Government itself is fully capable of challenging the State law if it considers it unconstitutional, and therefore the matter need not be pursued through a PIL, it added.
“The Court is inclined to close this PIL without entering into the merits of the issues raised,” the Bench thus held, while granting liberty to the Union of India to challenge the regulations, rules, and other related matters “in an appropriate manner as they may be so advised.”
During the hearing, it was also brought to the Court’s notice that the agreement between the Nagaland Government and Metropolitan Oil & Gas Pvt. Ltd., which had been granted a permit for operations in Wokha district, was nearing expiry.
The Court observed that the agreement “would lapse soon” and may have already expired by the time of the judgment, but also declined to make any further comment on that aspect.
