Regularisation row: Covid-appointed health workers warn of contempt

The Joint Action Committee (JAC) of COVID-era appointed healthcare workers has asserted that the Cabinet decision taken on February 3, 2026, to keep “on hold” the regularisation order of COVID-appointed health workers is legally untenable and constitutionally impermissible, maintaining that the issue has moved beyond the scope of executive discretion.
In a statement issued through its media cell, the JAC stated that the matter had already been settled through due governmental decision-making and judicial scrutiny and therefore could no longer be treated as an executive issue. It pointed out that the affected healthcare workers had completed the joining process and that their appointments had already attained legal effect.
The JAC contended that any subsequent attempt to stall or suspend implementation through an executive “hold” order was arbitrary, ultra vires, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
It emphasised that once a decision had attained finality in law, it could not be rendered uncertain or infructuous by an administrative order.
Stating that it was a settled legal principle that wilful non-implementation or obstruction of a judicially settled issue amounted to contempt of court, the JAC warned that continued inaction, delay, or indirect circumvention of the decision—allegedly due to external pressures—could expose the authorities concerned to contempt proceedings for deliberate disobedience of binding legal conclusions.
The JAC urged the State Government and the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) to resolve the issue immediately in accordance with law and constitutional propriety. It asserted that engagements or negotiations could not override judicial discipline or dilute settled legal rights.
The committee cautioned that failure to revoke the hold order and implement the lawful decision without further delay would compel the affected healthcare workers to initiate appropriate contempt of court proceedings, in addition to pursuing other legal remedies available under law. It also stated that the workers would be constrained to adopt lawful and democratic forms of protest, as warranted, to safeguard their constitutional rights, professional dignity, and livelihood.
The JAC maintained that the matter had moved beyond the realm of policy debate and had become an issue of respecting the rule of law, upholding the Constitution, and ensuring responsible conduct by the government.