CM Zeliang’s qualification case heard

Both counsels asked to submit written arguments on Friday KOHIMA, SEPTEMBER 14: The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench Wednesday had another hearing on the case regarding the educational qualification of the Chief Minister of Nagaland, TR Zeliang. Hon’ble Justice M.R. Pathak, after giving a lengthy hearing from the counsels of both the complainant and respondent, had asked them to submit their arguments in written at the court on September 16 (Friday). The case was adjourned for the day without any ruling from the Hon’ble justice as the argument prolonged till late evening. It may be recalled that the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Peren, had on July 29 last, dismissed the complaint case against CM TR Zeliang’s educational qualification, on the ground that the complaint case is barred by time limitation, that is one year since the time of filling the affidavit to the returning officer during the State election. Following the decision, the complainant(s) through their counsel K.N. Balgopal, senior advocate, had filed a criminal revision petition at the GHC Kohima Bench on August 18, challenging the decision of the JMFC Peren.Representing the complainant(s) at the court today, advocate Balgopal argued against the decision of the JMFC Peren on time limitation, and questioned if she decided in the interest of justice. The Judicial Magistrate First Class Peren in her judgement had observed that the complaint was not filed in time. To this, Balgopal reiterated that they were within the limitation period, and have produced all the facts. More than the time limitation, Balgopal argued that “the date of coming to know about the offence” holds more importance in the eye of the judiciary. He maintained that “no one should corner the rights of any citizen who is trying to set the law in motion.” The counsel for the complainants also stated in their petition that though the false affidavit was in public domain neither the records of Kohima College nor NEHU were in the website. The counsel for the complainant also appealed to the court that in the earlier proceedings at JMFC Peren, the respondent had added additional words (interpolation) while referring the Supreme Court order of 15-06-2016 thus trying to widen the scope of the case for the magistrate and it is in itself contempt of court. On the magistrate’s conclusion accusing the complainant’s move as political vendetta, Balgopal reiterated that the “Right to Information” is a fundamental right of all citizens, and not a political vendetta. He argued that criminal process would come to a standstill if judicial discipline is not maintained by the judiciary, while maintaining that “there is difference between an affidavit and a false affidavit.” It may be noted that the merit of the case is already decided by the same court on the judgement order dated 25-4-2016 wherein it has observed that the complainant “has locus standi to file the complaint”. The counsel of the respondent A. Zhimomi argued that the complaint was filed much beyond time, and therefore, stated that the question of limitation does not arise. Maintaining that the affidavit of the CM was put in public domain through the returning officer during the 2013 election, he questioned the responsibility of the voters on due diligence then. At the court, the Hon’ble Justice informed that the proceeding of the case would be decided once both the counsels submit their arguments in written on Friday.