Jayanta Debnath

Agartala | The constitutional validity of the Jamatia Customary Laws Act, 2017, has come under judicial scrutiny following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Tripura’s one of the women Advocate Madhumita Bhattacharjee before the Supreme Court of India. The development has also brought renewed attention to the role of Tripurainfo.com, whose earlier publications had raised questions about the provisions of the customary law and their compatibility with constitutional guarantees and the country’s criminal justice system.

According to the case details made available, the Supreme Court issued notice on October 26, 2026, in Madhumita Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura, Diary No. 32298/2026. The petition challenges Section 143 of the Jamatia Customary Laws Act, 2017, particularly in relation to the alleged provision for dealing with serious offences, including rape, through monetary penalties or customary settlement.

Advocate Madhumita Bhattacharjee has highlighted the sequence of events leading to the litigation, stating that the constitutional concerns were raised publicly before the matter reached the Supreme Court. An article authored by her first brought attention to the disputed provisions of the customary law.

Subsequently, an investigative report by a Tripurainfo.com correspondent examined related aspects of the legislation and brought further public attention to the questions surrounding its legality and implications. According to the petitioner’s account, these publications raised important questions about whether the customary law’s provisions were consistent with constitutional protections, the statutory framework governing criminal offences and the limits of the legislative powers exercised under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

The concerns reportedly remained unanswered to the petitioner’s satisfaction despite the publication of the articles. Advocate Bhattacharjee subsequently approached the Supreme Court, seeking judicial examination of the disputed provision and appropriate constitutional relief.

The sequence highlights the potential role of investigative journalism in bringing questions of public importance into wider public discussion. The initial article by Advocate Bhattacharjee and the subsequent investigation by a Tripurainfo.com correspondent placed the disputed provisions of the 2017 legislation in the public domain before the present judicial proceedings.

The distinction between raising questions and establishing illegality remains important. The articles and the petition have brought the issues into focus, but the ultimate determination of the law’s constitutional validity rests with the judiciary.

The case raises a fundamental question: can a customary legal framework provide for the settlement of serious criminal allegations in a manner that conflicts with the criminal laws applicable across the country?

The petition reportedly challenges the compatibility of the disputed provision with Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, which concern equality before the law, protection against specified forms of discrimination, and life and personal liberty. It also raises questions about the relationship between customary law, the Sixth Schedule and the applicable central criminal legislation.

The Jamatia Customary Laws Act, 2017, was enacted during the tenure of the then Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar. Tathagata Roy was the Governor of Tripura during that period.