DIMAPUR, JUNE 28 : For about 6 or 7 hours on Tuesday, the Peren district headquarters office was in lockdown –with a double security cordon, one layer each at the main gate and the entrance of the office building – as the hearing on the alleged false academic affidavits of Chief Minister TR Zeliang was held at the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC,) Peren.
Besides the security cordon at the gates, police in riot gear were also placed around the building. At the entrance of the office building, people were made to go through a security metal detector under the watchful eyes of the police and the district administration.
All these arrangements were in place as thousands of supporters of both the parties involved in the case descended upon the new Peren district headquarters on Tuesday morning. The perimeter walls of the court were also hung with banners declaring support to the chief minister.
Inside the court, the proceedings lasted for nearly five hours as counsels for both the parties presented their arguments and counter-arguments. The complainant was represented by his counsel, KN Balgopal while A Zhimomi represented chief minister TR Zeliang.
After hearing both the counsel uninterrupted, for almost 5 hours, the JMFC Peren, Somet Chumden Chang reserved the judgment. No date was specified as to when the judgment would be declared. During the proceedings, Balgopal argued that in the written complaint submitted to the JMFC Peren, the respondent has tampered with the Supreme Court order of June 15, 2015 by writing: “by order dated 15.06.2016 in coming to the conclusion that the Hon’ble High Court has not decided any of the issues raised.”
He pointed out this was not in the Supreme Court order and that it was an addition by the respondent to “prejudice the mind” of the court. “...and the respondent being the chief minister of the state cannot play havoc with court orders and he is, therefore liable for initiation of appropriate proceedings by the competent court.” This, he told the court, amounted to contempt of the Supreme Court.
He also argued that High Court did not interfere with the proceedings of complaint case No. 4/2015 pending before the Magistrate on the one hand, while the Supreme Court also did not consider it necessary to go into the merits and entertain the petition filed by the chief minister against the High Court judgment. On the issue of limitation, he argued that even if the date of commission of offence is known and there is knowledge of the offence, the limitation period starts only when the offender has also been identified. “Otherwise this will make a mockery of criminal proceedings because all that an offender has to do is to commit an offence and then disappear and re-appear only after the period of limitation with respect to the date of commission expires.”
Zeliang’s counsel, Zhimomi had argued that the period of limitation should be counted from the first week of February 2013, since the contents of Zeliang’s academic affidavits were made public through the Returning Officer concerned back then, and also through the website of the department concerned.
He also argued that complaint filed against Zeliang at Kohima should not be entertained by the court since the complainant was from Jotsoma and not an electorate from the chief minister’s constituency. The law, he said, in such cases allow only those aggrieved persons from the same constituency to that of the elected representative to file complaints. After the hearing, Zhimomi declined to discuss the issue with reporters “since the case was sub judice.”
The complainant’s counsel, Balgopal however questioned the use of banners declaring support to the chief minister inside the court premises. He pointed out that to hang such banners on the walls of the court’s perimeter, permission from the Registrar of the High Court was mandatory. He also wondered why members of the public were not allowed inside the court premises, arguing that the court of law should be accessible to everyone. Here also, he pointed out that the JMFC Peren was under the High Court, not the state government. So how can the state government use its security forces to restrict the entry of members of the public inside the court premises today, he asked.
