Fate of 9 MLAs hangs in the balance for now
EM Bureau
Dimapur, Oct. 26 (EMN): The Speaker of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly has on Thursday fixed the hearing of the disqualification petition against 10 MLAs that defied the directive of the Chief Minister and the Chief Whip of the NPF party to be held on Oct. 31.
A press communiqué was received from the N. Benjamin Newmai Commissioner & Secretary of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat.
" Public are aware that Shri T.R. Zeliang, Chief Minister of Nagaland had filed a petition for disqualification against 10 MLAs namely late Shri Kiyanilie Peseyie, MLA; Shri Y. Vikheho Swu; Shri Chotisuh Sazo, MLA; Shri Kuzholuzo Nienu, MLA; Shri Yitachu, MLA; Shri C.L. John, MLA; Shri N. Thongwang Konyak, MLA; Shri P. Longon, MLA, Shri R. Tohanba, MLA and Shri T. Torechu, MLA before the Honourable Speaker of Nagaland Legislative Assembly on 04.08.17, " stated the communiqué.
It also mentioned that the petitions were forwarded to the respondents on Aug. 10 and their replies were received on Aug. 24, after which the petitioner TR Zeliang also filed his rejoinder Sep.18.
" The Honourable Speaker in his notice for the hearing dated 31.10.2017 has sought the appearance of the Petitioner and 9 respondents, either in person of through counsel, so as to hear them out of the fundamental issues on which the proceedings can be held," it added.
With these the fate of the 9 NPF MLAs, as one of the respondents is already deceased, now hangs in balance as the Speaker adjudicates a complaint from the chief whip of a party whose appointment his office had earlier approved.
Although the outcome and the judgment of the Speaker will be admissible in the courts as per the Supreme Court judgment in case of Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu and Others, it would only further prolong the crises within the NPF.
Meanwhile the question of the practice of the appointment of the chief whip in Nagaland, whether by the president of the party or the leader of the legislature party, is yet to be tried as the case is still pending.
The outcome of that case would only indicate the accepted norm, but even then it will be decided whether it is just a procedural irregularity or an illegality.
The courts normally would not interfere into the procedural irregularity of the Parliament or Assembly proceedings but only in case of illegality and when the Speaker acts as an arbitrator, as in the present case.
