The Nagaland Bar Association (NBA) feels constrained to issue this press release in response to the challenges against the Bar which were published in some of the local English dailies during the recent past. Despite clarification issued through a rejoinder published in some of the local print media on 28.01.2017, there were continuing attacks challenging the integrity of the Bar and the professional rights of the legal fraternity.
At the outset, we would like to re-clarify that verbal briefing to the media was conducted in group discussion when the media persons approached the NBA office on 24.01.2017. Therefore, it was neither a press statement issued by Tali Ao nor by the NBA. The NBA cannot bluntly shun away from the approach of the print media persons and such verbal briefing to the press men cannot be taken to have assumed any authority of law. As such, the question of formulating a decision on interpretation of any constitutional legal provision does not arise.
The allegation of Yitachu, Minister, issuing the press statement under the colour of his Government authority that “the interpretation of law only rest with the court. Any practising lawyer cannot interpret the law.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 extent of legislative intent meaning the purposes for which the Act is enacted and cannot interpret any law not to mention of the Constitution” is absolutely false so far as the practising lawyers are concerned. In fact, by profession, the lawyers are interpreters of the law including the Constitutional provisions. The only binding force of interpretation is the decision of the competent courts of law in the case of ambiguity of law or disputed questions on interpretation of law. Every citizen in the country has the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and can interpret the law according to his own understanding, wisdom and knowledge. Even the interpretation of statutes (law) is a subject in the academic study of law. Therefore, the press statement of Yitachu is a serious challenge and highly detrimental to the legal fraternity. Yitachu howsoever high he may be under the colour of the Government authority, cannot exercise despotic authority over the legal fraternity. He should know that the appointment of Additional Advocate General is outside the Constitutional provision and his assumption to the contrary is a fallacy which may rightly to be attributed to the present social commotion in the State. The press statement given by Yitachu is a serious case of curtailment of the fundamental right tofreedom of speech and expression for the citizens and more particularly members of the legal fraternity in discharge of their lawful duty in legal practice. Hence, Yitachu should withdraw his press statement to the extent it encroaches against the rights of the citizens and the lawyers, and also must tender unconditional apology to the legal fraternity.
As regards the press statement issued by Kakheto Sema, Senior Advocate and Senior Additional Advocate General, Nagaland, expressing his regret that “a few members of the Bar, including some office bearers, have resorted to publishing their individual opinion in the collective name of the NBA”, we have to clarify that the executive body of the NBA headed by its office bearers has already clarified the matter in the print media by issuing appropriate rejoinder. However, it appears that in utter disregard of our rejoinder in the print media, he has gone to the extent that “I can only assume that the members have taken the course adopted for their personal agenda. The bottom line is that the opinion expressed in the name of the NBA is not the opinion of the NBA”. We have esteemed regard in the person of Kakheto Sema, a respected designated Sr. Advocate who is also presently holding the Sr. Additional Advocate General of the State though such assignments are extra-Constitutional. However, we express deep regret for his prompt rush to the print media questioning the integrity and solidarity of the NBA. This situation would have been avoided had he approached the Bar before rushing to the press in as much as we have so much regard in him as an Associate Member of the NBA till date.
With regard to the press briefing of the Chief Minister published in some of the local English dailies reacting to the NBA’s interaction with the print media published in some of the local dailies, the understanding of T. R. Zeliang, Chief Minister of Nagaland, appears to have acted on wrong assumption of law in as much as the NBA has never claimed that the view verbally tendered to the print media has any Constitutional and legal binding. No doubt, that he may consider the opinion tendered by the Advocate General, however, his rebuttal of the correctness of the NBA briefing published in some of the local dailies appears to be absolutely erroneous in as much as we have never assumed the authority of law.
Considering the present scenario leading to the diminution of the independence of local self government for tribal States like Nagaland appears to be lack of knowledge in understanding the law by reading together the entire Constitutional and legal provisions by which the State of Nagaland is empowered. Thus the authorities in the State are acting in confusion leading to the State Cabinet to approach the Prime Minister for exemption of Nagaland from Part IX-A of the Constitution. Needless to reiterate that the present State of Nagaland enjoys enormous autonomy in local self-government including Urban Local Bodies right since we were under the Sixth Schedule. Becoming a full-fledged State does not in any way diminish the autonomy enjoyed by the State including the ULBs. Barely looking at the Seventh Schedule, List II, Item 5, is sufficient enough for the State Legislature to legislate for the ULBs. The State Government therefore enacted the Nagaland Municipal Act, 2001, without any reference to Part IX-A. However, reliance to Part IX-A of the Constitution in its 1st Amendment Act, 2006, and notifications issued thereunder appears to have given rise to the present situation. In fact, Part IX-A - Municipalities has been incorporated in the Constitution by the Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992, which has been enforced w.e.f. 24.04.1993. However, if at all these provisions are mandatory as claimed by the Chief Minister, how the State Government was sleeping over the mandatory provisions of the Constitution for the last more than 20 years. In other words, we may reiterate that Nagaland requires a municipal law befitting to the social and economic conditions of the people of Nagaland and the powers to enact such law is squarely within the parameters of the powers of the State Government.
Imkong Jamir, Vice President, NBA V. Hukavi Zhimomi, General Secretary, NBA
