Providing reservation to women in urban local bodies would have led to an “anomalous” situation in the state depriving similar benefits to women in rural areas, said the Nagaland government.
This development comes in wake of a recent affidavit submitted in the Supreme Court which had sought an explanation from the state for going back on its promise to implement 33% women reservation in urban municipalities in the upcoming civic polls this month.
Coming out with this constitutional argument to justify its March 29 decision to repeal the Nagaland Municipal Act under which women reservation was promised, the state chief secretary in an affidavit filed last week said that Nagaland faced a “peculiar situation” as municipalities under the Constitution Part IXA apply to the state while the operation of Panchayats under Part IX stand specifically excluded by Article 243M.
Also Read: Nagaland government to constitute panel to frame new municipal act
“This has created an anomalous situation in the state whereby women living in the urban areas can claim reservation whereas their counterparts in rural areas do not have such a benefit,” the Nagaland chief secretary (CS) said.
He further explained, “This creates a peculiar situation whereby two women living within a distance of as little as 2 km, or even less, from each other are being put in an inequitable position.”
The geographical makeup of the state is such that there is often no clear demarcation between village areas and municipal areas and villages often surround and merge with the municipal areas, informed the state.
In view of such peculiar and unique circumstances prevailing in the state, the affidavit said, “The Government will have to consider such disparity, also taking into consideration the fact that Article 371A (special provisions for Nagaland) of the Constitution applies to the entire State of Nagaland.”
Article 371A states that any Central Act passed by Parliament in respect of religious or social practices of the Nagas, Naga customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law, and ownership and transfer of land and its resources, cannot apply to the state unless the Nagaland Assembly adopts it by passing a resolution.
The state’s decision to repeal the Nagaland Municipal Act on March 29 had invited the wrath of the top court which issued notices to the state chief minister, chief secretary seeking explanation and sought a response from the Centre on how a constitutional mandate to implement 33%% reservation for women in municipalities could be rendered futile in this manner by a state.
This matter will be taken up for hearing on May 18.
The state said that while Article 371A seeks to protect the unique history, identity and socio-economic features of Nagaland’s tribes, this exercise is complex, sensitive and emotive as the different tribes, comprising 15 recognised tribes, do not have uniform customs, laws and practices, and many have no written record of the same.
This has made consultative meetings aimed towards finding a consensus between the various tribes on the necessity of holding urban local body polls a challenge.
Elections at the municipal level could not be held for the past two decades due to the recurrent history of boycotts and violence by various tribal groups.
The state told the Court that while it endeavoured to hold polls and rollout reservation for women in urban local bodies, the boycott by tribal bodies forced a rethink and led the state to repeal the Act.
“It continues to be the intent of the Government to conduct elections expeditiously and to conclude this issue fruitfully and amicably. The Government endeavours to do this by considering all issue by bringing on board all the stakeholders to find a consensus.”
It was in September 2012 when the Nagaland assembly passed a resolution not to give effect to the 33% women reservation in urban local bodies.
This resolution was challenged by NGO Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in the Supreme Court in 2016.
Though the assembly withdrew the resolution in November 2016, the law was not implemented due to opposition by state tribal leaders who indulged in large scale violence. The Court had been pushing the state to give women their rightful due.
On March 14, the Court passed an order for holding elections and directed that any authority or person acting contrary to this order be seen as acting in breach of the Court’s order. It was citing this order, PUCL moved an application before the Court seeking contempt of Court action to be initiated against the state government, its officials and the state election commission. It is in these proceedings that the recent affidavit of the state was filed.
