Staff Reporter
Article 371(A) as contained under Clause VII of the 16-Point Agreement has of late become a hot topic in the light of the reaffirmation of the state government to frame rules governing oil and gas operations in the state.
Giving his constitutional and legal interpretations of Article 371(A) at a seminar conducted by the City Law College Students Union in Burma Camp Friday, principal of City Law College P.Leonard Aier said the clause implied that Nagas have full autonomy and independence to frame laws governing land and resources within the geographical boundary of Nagaland state.
He further argued that even the 7th Schedule of the Indian constitution cannot “over ride” the special provisions of Article 371(A) which amplified “that notwithstanding anything in this constitution, no Act of parliament in respect of ownership and transfer of land and its resources, shall apply to the state of Nagaland; unless the legislative assembly of Nagaland by a resolution, do decides”.
Aier was expounding his legal opinion with reference to the views on the rejection of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on the attempt of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly(NLA) in framing the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules 2012.
Aier pointed out that no state in India has such a ‘Special Provision’ as Art.371(A) over resources. Illustrating it with the case of Mizoram, he said though the constitution does not over ride ownership and transfer of land in Mizoram state; yet parliament has the power to frame laws over the resources.
According to Aier, the principle governing Article 371(A) began with the British policy of non-interference in the affairs of the Nagas. He said enactment of Article 371(A) in the constitution was a recognition of the “uniqueness of the Nagas”.
Leonard opined that the British while attempting to govern or control Nagas, had to a large measure, played a role in bringing Naga tribes together. Before that, he said Nagas were neither united nor cohesive but lived and survived as independent villages.
He also expressed concern over the influx of illegal immigrants whose unchecked growth posed potential threat of “diluting” the special provisions under Article 371(A).He strongly backed extension of Inner Line Regulation to Dimapur and other parts of Nagaland to protect Nagas of the state from being assimilated.
Aier lamented that despite the threat, the state cabinet had recently rejected the proposal. He expressed concern over what he described as “ethnocide” or killing of one’s culture and tradition through assimilation with other “alien cultures”.
Enforcement Fines
Lecturer of City Law College, Longshi Ezung while expounding on the Motor Vehicle Act(MVA), said the Act required vehicle owners or drivers to produce relevant documents when asked for but that the enforcement agencies had no right to impose spot fines if such documents could not be produced then.
He said as per MVA, a 7-day period is granted to the owners or drivers to furnish the documents and that the owners or drivers could be held liable only after expiry of the mandatory period.
Ezung also pointed out that vehicle owners would be held accountable under the Act if they allowed their vehicles to be driven by anyone without a driving licence.
On transfer of ownership, he said the duty of an owner did not end with selling of the vehicle since it has to be reported to the authority within 14 days if sale took place within the state and 45 days if the vehicle was registered outside the state. He said the transferee should report on purchase of vehicle to the authority within 30 days.
On compensations related with accident, injury or death, Longshi said vehicle owners were liable for payment of certain amount as “interim award” to the victim(s) to the extent of injury or death even if the driver was not at fault.He said there was no limitation period for claim compensation on accidents as per the Limitation Act, MVA.
RELATED POSTS
View all
