Nagaland CM gets SC notice for ‘violating’ 33% women quota law
The state assembly had on March 29 repealed the 2001 law, leading to cancellation of municipal elections proposed to be held next month
The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to Nagaland chief minister Neiphiu Rio, state chief secretary and tribal leaders for repealing the Nagaland Municipal Act and violating a undertaking given to the court to roll out 33% reservation for women in local bodies after a gap of more than a decade.
The state assembly had on March 29 repealed the 2001 law, leading to cancellation of municipal elections proposed to be held next month. Prior to this, it had given an undertaking to the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation (PIL) proceeding by Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) to abide with Part IXA of the Constitution that provides 33% reservation for women in municipal bodies. This was recorded in an order passed on March 14.
Finding the “ingenious” method adopted by the state to be a clear violation of its March 14 order directing elections to 36 town councils and three municipalities, a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Aravind Kumar said, “There is hardly any hesitation to note what is done is in breach of the order of this Court.”
The order came on an application moved by PUCL informing the court about the attempt by the state to defeat the implementation of women’s reservation in the face of protests by tribal groups threatening to boycott the local body elections.
The application by PUCL had sought contempt notices to be issued to the chief minister, chief secretary, state election commissioner and heads of tribal groups for not implementing court’s order. The bench directed notices to be issued to all persons except the state election commissioner. “What can the election commission do? They (state) have frustrated everything,” the bench said.
Posting the matter to May 1, the bench asked the Centre to respond whether the state was justified to act in this manner when there is no justification under the Constitution for not implementing the same. “The Centre cannot let a part of a country, particularly in the process of assimilation, go against the constitutional scheme,” the bench said. “You will have to find a solution.”
Additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the state has taken the defence of Article 371A of the Constitution. This relates to special provisions for Nagaland where any Act of Parliament in respect of religious or social practices of the Nagas, Naga customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice, and ownership and transfer of land and its resources, will be applicable in state only by a resolution adopted by the state assembly.
“We would like the Centre to place its stand whether constitutional scheme of one-third reservation in municipalities and town councils in the opinion of the Central government can be violated by a process so adopted by the Nagaland government,” The bench in its order said. “We say so in the context of Article 371A of the Constitution of India as nothing has emerged so far has emerged to advance a plea that religious or social practices or customary laws would deny women reservation.”
Nagaland advocate general KN Balagopal sought a last chance from the court. “There is a climate of negotiation prevailing where we are trying to convince the tribal leaders that implementing the reservation as part of Part IXA is in the interest of development of state as it will get grants,” he said, adding that the issue was not of men versus women as out of the 15 tribal groups, eight have raised certain inconsistencies in the law where they apprehend that women could tinker with inheritance rights.
Opposing the state, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves for PUCL submitted: “There is no shred of evidence that reservation for women interferes with customary Naga tradition.”
The bench also raised concerns over the state’s stand. “You cannot keep everyone happy,” it said. “At every stage when something is concluded, someone will object.”
Stating that the state’s move is done with the intention to defeat women’s empowerment, the bench told the state: “Empowerment comes from education, inheritance and political participation. There is some section of society having male domination. If political consensus does not emerge, how can we allow the law to languish?”
Balagopal told the court that any boycott by tribal groups is to be taken seriously, as it may result in violence and bloodshed, which the state wishes to avoid. The court reminded the state that threat of violence is there in every election, but this does not mean that elections won’t be held.
The PUCL wanted both orders passed by state assembly on March 29 repealing the law and a subsequent order of March 30 issued by Nagaland election commission cancelling the election schedule to be set aside. On April 5, the top court had stayed the March 30 order, but with the Act not in place, the election process could not be held.
The tribal heads known as hohos sought a guarantee that “33% women reservation does not infringe Article 371-A” and proposed that the tenures or the time duration of the application of 33% women reservation be fixed. They desired that such reservation should not exceed for more than two tenures. “Until and unless the Nagaland Municipal Act 2001 is reviewed and rewritten, urban local body election may be deferred,” the hohos demanded.