Conflict b/w Customary laws and SC interpretation of Constitutional laws
2023 may turn historic...but is this the way ?
New Delhi
A season of history making has unfolded. But if this is the way to write history and leave a legacy, oh boy !! I am not for it.
What has surfaced in the Supreme Court today is an unprecedented big confrontation between the Supreme Court of India and an elected state government. Paradoxically, the BJP of Shri Narendra Modi is part of the ruling dispensation in Kohima.
A case of self-inflicted mayhem. What is more dangerous - incompetence or ill intent?
The NDPP-BJP combine cannot blame any predecessor's regime. The Supreme Court was assured by the same regime under the same Chief Minister.
The apex court had noted in its March 14 order that the state poll panel had submitted that the elections will be held on May 16.
'Nagaland Page'
Although a valiant attempt was made by Parliamentary Affairs Minister K G Kenye, when he tried to put the blame on a section of bureaucrats in 2016-17.
But the root cause lies in 2017. Who lit the fire of 2017 ? This question is even haunting one Deputy Chief Minister in the Rio cabinet. Another deputy Chief Minister seems to be waiting in the wings for next rounds of directive from the centre.
The Modi government too got its share from the Supreme Court on Thursday-- “We respect the local sentiments but the law of the land must be followed and it is your duty as the Union government… You have to find a solution. We cannot let the law of the land not being followed,” the two-member bench of Justices S K Kaul and A Amanullah told the Centre.
Are we into a tottering state of affairs? Justice Amanullah even stated - "We expected some restraint in the Chief Minister's affidavit". This means the draft of the affidavit itself was not to the satisfaction of the court.
This also means you could be starting the battle with some major casualties already. The Judge virtually cautioned: -- "Mr Advocate General, do not let us enter into an arena where we have to declare some northeast customary laws unconstitutional".
This statement, according to many men and women of law, does not augur well for the votaries of customary laws !
A former Chief Minister told this journalist, "Never in my long career had I heard the Supreme Court using the phrase of a rope and hanging against even a small government department. This is against an elected state government which enjoys the political backing of PM Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah".
A judicious scrutiny of the proceedings suggest a big challenge has unfolded and it isthe "conflict in law" between customary laws and interpretation of the Supreme Court on constitutional laws.
A person known for affinity to a former judge of a top court remarked in a lighter veinthat the 're-interpretation' of the Article 371 (A) either by the Supreme Court and the centrein 2023 could make things worse vis-a-vis customary practices and laws.
Strong words were used but both the judges are known for being courteous and amiable at their personal levels.
No elected government accountable to the people's mandate and Constitution will perhaps remember the day's proceedings in the apex court on May 18, 2012 with a sense of pride and satisfaction.
At one point, the advocate general went on to say - "We have to see if it is in their (Naga) customs" to allow women reservation in elections to urban local bodies.
More strong words and phrases poured in.
Justice Kaul was emphatic: "You cannot skirt your responsibilities committed to this court".
These may bring the gentleman named Mr La Ganesan into action. HonourableGovernor should immediately summon the Chief Minister Rio and also the advocate general.Last month, Mr Ganesan told me, "We have to hold elections....We believe in women empowerment .....At the same time we have to see what tribal bodies have stated. In Tamil Nadu, there is a saying, the snake has to be killed, but we need to ensure that the stick is not broken".
The NDPP-BJP combine may believe the snake is in their kitty and the stick is with Himanta(s).The replacement of India's Law Minister on May 18 sends a message that when PM Modi acts, there is nobreathing space.
Power is also a beguiling intoxicant; when a peg hits the head, wrote M J Akbar once, it tends to encourage notions of divinity.
Late Sheila Dikshit ruled Delhi for 15 years and gave the city all modern infrastructures; but sadly, today people rememberher for Commonwealth Games scams. Dr Manmohan Singh's revolutionary economicliberalisation and Nuke deal as PM are forgotten. People mock him with the phrase - ' 2G and Rahul ji'.
My story is of the last twenty years.
ends
"..... do not use Long Rope to hang yourself," Supreme Court tells Nagaland Govt
“We respect the local sentiments but the law of the land must be followed and it is your duty as the Union government… You have to find a solution. We cannot let the law of the land not being followed,” the two-member bench told the Centre.
“We have put to them the seriousness of the matter as long rope also has its limitations,”
New Delhi
Strong and unprecedented words were used on Thursday, May 18 by the two-member Supreme Court bench during the contempt or 'breach' of court proceedings on the high profile ULB elections in Nagaland.
No elected government and accountable to the people's mandate and Constitution would remember the day's proceedings in the apex court with a sense of pride and satisfaction.
"We have given a long rope, do not use it to hang yourself," the Bench of Justice SK Kaul and A Amanullah said in response to Nagaland advocate general K M Nataraj making yet another request for "more time".
The advocate general went on to say - "We have to see if it is in their (Naga) customs" to allow women reservation in elections to urban local bodies.
More strong words and phrases poured in. At one point, Justice Kaul remarked: "You cannot skirt your responsibilities committed to this court".
He further said in reference to state government's plea -- “In the nutshell, the position is, you are not willing to implement the assurances given to the court on the right or wrong (to the Nagaland Government) on pretext that there are groups who don’t want it and you don’t want to go against them.”
The apex court wondered if a section of a society have a contrary point of view on some issues, does the government of the day “succumb to the blackmail”.
Agreeing with him, Justice Amanullah also said, the Nagaland government's stance and Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio"s affidavit also makes it obvious that the state government "cannot subserve [meaning support or implement] the mandate of this court".
This actually sounded taking strong exception to Nagaland government's decision to ventilate it's utter helplessness in ensuring implementation of the Supreme Court directives.
Justice Amanullah even stated- "We expected some restraint in the Chief Minister's affidavit". He virtually cautioned: -- "Mr Advocate General do not let us to enter into arena where we have to declare some northeast customary laws unconstitutional".
This statement, according to many men and women of law, do not augur well for the votaries of customary laws !!
Background:
The apex court had noted in its March 14 order that the SEC counsel had submitted the elections will be held on May 16.
The petitioners have moved an application before the top court through advocate Satya Mitra against the cancellation of the elections and urged it to take contempt action for “disobeying” the March 14 order.
Besides seeking quashing of the March 30 notification issued by the SEC cancelling the election programme, the application has also sought setting aside of the Nagaland Municipal (Repeal) Act, 2023.
The SEC had earlier announced elections to the 39 urban local bodies in the state. Of these 39 bodies, Kohima, Dimapur and Mokokchung have municipal councils, while the rest are town councils.
Several Naga tribal bodies and civil society organisations had opposed the elections under the Nagaland Municipal Act 2001, asserting it infringes the special rights for Nagaland guaranteed by Article 371-A of the Constitution.
The 2001 Act, which was amended later, made 33 per cent reservation of seats for women mandatory for holding the elections, as directed by the Supreme Court.
Quotes:
No comments:
Post a Comment