The Government Still Owe an Explanation

At a time when the legality of the cabinet decision to hold elections to urban local bodies with 33 percent reservation is being debated in the open, the chief minister of the state has finally gone on record to state that his government did not want to wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court and therefore announced the elections to the Municipal and Town Councils in the state with women reservation. He stated this during the inaugural programme of a bus service of the Nagaland State Transport at Pungro in Kiphire. He even reinforced his statement by stating that it was a “bold decision” of the present government and that reservation was already part of The Municipal Act Amendment 2006.

The chief minister stopped short of explaining what happened further in 2012 in the Nagaland Legislative Assembly since the last amendment. This comes after just four years when the present chief minister himself was part of the government wherein it deliberated Part IX of the constitution and resolved that the Article 243D that has provision for women reservation is not applicable in the state of Nagaland and most importantly it resolved that “the reservation of seats for women impinges/infringes on the social and customary practices of the Nagas, the safeguards of which is enshrined in Article 371(A) of the Constitution of India”. An earlier editorial on this same column have also analysed in detail the series of events since 2001. Therefore, the electorates, especially the tribal bodies will need a clear explanation from the government on the changed stance.

It can also be noted that, the country has clear separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Legislature. Just as Article 121 of the constitution prohibits the parliament from discussing the conduct of a judge in the discharge of his duties, Article 122 also prohibits the courts from enquiry in to the proceedings of the parliament. So the proceedings of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly too is beyond the purview of the Judiciary unless there is a clear case of substantial illegality. This again is protected in the case of Nagaland through Article 371(A). Therefore the case of a pre-emptive move on apprehension of the Supreme Court verdict, as done at present through a cabinet decision, does not come into question and it also jeopardises the provisions of Article 371(A).

The proceedings of the Assembly in the month of March and September 2012 were also widely publicised in the media, more detailed accounts of the proceedings are now being circulated in the open and it is expected that the Assembly records will be in detail. The government enjoys almost complete majority at present and another Assembly Resolution might just be procedural in its view but can a Cabinet decision just do away an Assembly Resolution when it is not certain of the views and stand of the tribal bodies which was the actual reason that led to the Assembly Resolution of September 22, 2012. All these do not bode well for the integrity of the present leaderships unless explained.