Share
Dimapur, July 14 (EMN): The Dimapur Ao Youth Organisation (Dayo) on Tuesday issued a statement to clarify its stand “once and for all” on the purported delimitation exercise in Nagaland.
While stating that it welcomes constructive criticism from any quarter for the common good and welfare of the Naga society at large, the organisation provided “some historical facts and data”, mentioning the names of people who served as chief ministers between 1966 and 1980 and the “director of Census Operations, Nagaland, 1971 Daniel Kent of the Indian Frontier Administrative Service”, to counter the “hypothesis of Ao leaders being at the helm of affairs might have influenced the census figures and delimitation exercise carried out in 1973 based on the census of 1971”.
The Dayo stated that “Nagaland population census 1971 was 5,16,449 and the rational conclusion to determine the criteria for allocation of 60 assembly seats to each tribal population within a district required a minimum of (5,16,449/60) 8607 population”.
It recounted that Mokokchung was allocated 10 seats as per the distribution of assembly seats for the first general election in 1964 for 40 seats based on the 1961 Census, and the same was retained during the delimitation exercise carried out based on 1971 Census, proportionate to its existing population and the norms observed for its distribution.
“Each district was proportionately represented based on the population size at that point of time and was considered fair and just as there was no recorded complaints therein. The number of representatives allocated to each tribal population within each districts validated the census figures,” it stated.
It said re-adjustment of territorial constituencies in allocation of seats to the States in the House of the People and legislative assemblies are provided under Article 82 and Article 170 (2) and (3) respectively of the Constitution of India, 1950, and that “3rd Provisos to both the Articles prohibits re-adjustment to the total number of seats and the division of territorial constituencies until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2000 has been published”.
“The object and intent of constitutional amendment and legislation has thus given precedence to the population policy and the family planning programmes of the Government rather than to take cognisance of population growth in the country. Therefore, the population ascertained in every census, if taken to be basis for delimitation and re-adjustment of constituencies, situation would arise where MP/MLA seats from rural areas would continually be transferred to the urban areas, and also encouraged population growth,” the statement issued Dayo media cell read.
Citing the provisions and norms mentioned in Article 82 and Article 170 of the Constitution pertaining to delimitation and re-adjustment of constituencies, the organisation stated that the ‘census figures as ascertained in the year 1971, 1991 or 2001 may become relevant to be taken into consideration under the law’.
“The proposed transfer of assembly seats from one district to another district under the guise of the territorial re-adjustment of assembly constituencies are unknown to law, and in the absence of enhanced number of assembly seats above the existing 60 seats, the question of delimitation of assembly constituencies as envisaged under the Delimitation Act, 2002, does not arise,” the statement read.
“Furthermore, the equation of some districts having multi-lingual representation with their own distinct dialects/languages and traditional tribal lands with district boundaries if not addressed comprehensively will result in breakdown of law and order. The Presidential Notification dated 28th Feb, 2020 while rescinding its earlier Order of deferment of delimitation exercise (Presidential Notification dated, 08.02.2008) observes and states that the earlier law and order situation no longer persists. This is a point of contention in the present juncture and the citizens of Nagaland are the best judge for the same,” it added.
The organisation went on to state that ‘in the absence of changes in inter-state boundaries or the inter-district boundaries, affecting the existing territorial boundaries of any constituencies, the question of invoking the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002, or any other law for transfer of assembly seats from one district to another within the same State solely on account of population growth does not arise, and the same would be highly illegal and unconstitutional’.