Views & Reviews
Yitachu on the ULB Elections
I would like to take this opportunity once again to express certain Government stand on the present ULB election for public consumption.
The election to the ULB is same as election to the State Assembly and Parliamentary election. Article 329 barred the interference by Courts in electoral matters for Parliamentary election and State election. Article 243-ZG barred the interference by Courts in electoral matters of the ULB. Article 243-O barred the interference by Courts in electoral matters of the Panchayats in the state of Nagaland- the Village Council. There is no other option but the process of election as notified on the 21st December 2016 must be completed as per the Constitution.
The Press Release issued by Shri Tali Ao, the President Nagaland Bar Association is creating confusion in the minds of the citizens. The interpretation of Law only rest with the Court. Any practicing lawyer cannot interpret the Law. At the most, one can express his opinion which he has made a plea in the Court or read out Court judgement. The Attorney General for the Centre and the Advocate General or Additional Advocate General in the state can only make a statement on behalf of the Government to the extend of Legislative intent meaning the purpose for which the Act is enacted and cannot interpret any Law not to mention of the Constitution. People are ignorant of Law and the Constitution. Shri Tali Ao, the President Nagaland Bar Association giving a Press statement that the Nagaland Municipal and Town Council Act is null and void and Nagaland the entire population being a Scheduled Tribe, the Municipal and Town Council Act or in that matter Part IX A of the Constitution of India is not applicable to the state of Nagaland. Such unwarranted and misleading statement by a practicing lawyer is unfortunate and is against the professional ethic of a practicing lawyer. However, Shri Tali Ao can prove to the Naga people what he said is right by filing a case in the Court and bring Court judgement in line with what he has stated and if it is not possible should apologise to the Naga people and also apologise to Nagaland Bar Association for tarnishing the image of the Bar.
I would also like to make a statement in relation to the APO accusing Shri T.R. Zeliang and Dr. Shurhozelie taking a U-turn appearing in Nagaland Post the 29th January 2017. The accusation appears to be more of a fault finding approach to the present issue. If it is out of genuine concern for the people and Article 371 A then the question should be- What are the reasons that the Government have to resort to revoking its own Resolution? The Assembly Resolution was aimed at and as a strategy measure device to avoid implementation of the Honorable High Court direction to implement 33% Women Reservation. The Government took this exercise in respecting the wishes of the call by the Naga Hoho and various Tribal Hohos against the 33% Women Reservation. However, the Women group challenge the Assembly Resolution in the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. The argument that the 73rd and 74th Amendment supercede Article 371 A in the Special Leave Petition is not going to go well with the Naga people and when the Senior Advocate in the Supreme Court are honestly expressing that they do not see a winnable argument that the Article 243-T of Part IX A of the Constitution infringes Article 371 A, the Chief Minister and the Government and since it is a Party Government, the Government and the Party headed by Shri T.R.Zeliang and Dr. Shurhozelie has applied their mind and took the best recourse for the Naga people and most importantly to protect the sanctity of Article 371 A for future Naga generation. The Naga people should appreciate their leadership.
School Education & SCERT