“The Nagaland Lokayukta Bill, 2012”, a private member bill sought to be introduced in the assembly by Congress member C.Apok Jamir earlier listed for business Friday, was derailed after the Speaker rejected its introduction due to certain deficiencies.
After moving for introduction, the bill came up against a wall when parliamentary affairs minister T.R.Zeliang pointed out certain flaws and deficiencies.
Putting forth arguments against the introduction of the bill, T R Zeliang observed that prior to its introduction, the bill has to comply with certain rules and requirement.
In this regard, he pointed out that the bill did not meet the requirement of Rule 67 (ii) and also did not fulfill the requirements of the statement of object and procedures under Rule 65 clause (i).
Further he reminded the house that Article 371 (a) was extracted from 16-point agreement as enshrined in the Constitution of India which he described as the current guardian of Nagas right.
He also drew members’ attention that Article 71 of the Rules of Procedure, under which members took oath to uphold the rules and procedures formulated by the August House.
In the light of his arguments against the Bill, Zeliang said the proposed Nagaland Lokayukta was “totally unacceptable and not in tune with the Naga way of life” and that on various counts, it was “highly incomplete”.
In addition, Zeliang also pointed out various financial obligations if the bill was to be passed but which the private member failed to attach a financial memorandum.
If the subjects in Article 371-A(1)(a) was enumerated, he said administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law was one important subject. He also said that a substantial portion of criminal law was inapplicable to the state.
The private bill sought to be introduced also squarely impinged upon the administration of civil and criminal justice according to Naga customary laws and requires serious examination as to how it breached Article 371-A(1)(a), he said.
He also reminded that due negligence of legislators , a plethora of parliamentary laws were being filtered in for application in the state. In this regard, the state assembly had earlier constituted a special assembly committee for scrutinizing all parliamentary laws.
Further, he also justified that the state was a full-fledged RTI regime besides there was Public Account Committee of the house for which the state has not extended the Delhi Special Powers Act.
The private members bill was unacceptable as it was not in tune with the Naga way of life as guaranteed by the constitution of India, he added. Speaker then asked the member to fulfill the requirements and after which the bill could be reintroduced afresh.
RELATED POSTS
View all
