NPF press and media bureau has reacted to the NPCC statement of an impending constitutional crisis in Nagaland due to financial crisis and tussle between the cabinet and Governor over appointment of Vigilance Commissioner.
On the appointment of Vigilance Commissioner, NPF Press and Media Bureau pointed out that proposal for appointment of K.Kire, former DGP as Vigilance Commissioner, was not based on cabinet decision but on the recommendation of the Search Committee with the chief secretary as chairman; Addl. Chief secretary & Commissioner Nagaland and Commissioner & Secretary P&R department as members.
NPF said Kire’s name was recommended, based on his service records, from among four others and the recommendation was forwarded to the Governor for approval, as per the Nagaland Rules of Executive Business but the previous Governor had kept the file pending for over a year till he demitted office.
NPF said the state government then withdrew the file from Raj Bhavan and re-endorsed to the new Governor for approval but that it was sent back with some queries, that are being furnished, adding it was not a case of being turned down, as reported.
Accusing the NPCC of issuing “damaging press statements” in order to prejudice the proposal for appointment of Kire as Vigilance Commissioner, NPF said it felt necessary to mention Kire’s records.
It said he is recipient of India’s highest police awards- the prestigious President’s Police Medal for Meritorious Service and President’s Police Medal for Distinguished Service- given within a space of ten years in between.
On the proposed amendment to the Nagaland Rules of Executive Business, NPF said it was a different issue and not related with the proposal for appointment of Kire as Vigilance Commissioner as “inaccurately alleged by the NPCC”.
It pointed out that though some sections of the Rules had been amended from time to time, section 32 (2) (xxi) relating to final authority for approval of cases relating to appointment, transfer and posting of officers from the level of DC/SP/Jt.Secretary including heads of departments (Directors) upwards had never been amended. NPF cited the case in other north eastern states, which were “very much junior to Nagaland” where approval for appointment of the above level officers even including chief secretary and DGP were never put up to the Governors for approval.
It opined that the Rule may have been made immediately after statehood owing to the “peculiar situations prevailing” but which has now become “outdated”.
It asserted that amendment of the Rules, framed in 1964, with regard to 34(2) (xxi) would “continue to be put up” to the Governor for approval.
On NPCC claim that Governor had special powers under Article 371(A), NPF maintained that it was only with regard to administration of Tuensang Regional Council but ended after dissolution of Tuensang Regional Council.
It asserted that the Governor has “special responsibility” on law and order in Nagaland till internal disturbances due to insurgency remained but that the “special responsibility” does not extend to administrative areas in appointment, transfer and posting of government officers.
NPF also pointed out as per Article 371(F) for Sikkim and Article 371(H) for Arunachal Pradesh, the respective Governors also had similar “special responsibilities on law and order”.
However, it said the “special responsibilities” in the states above, did not reflect on their rules of executive business as the states do not send files for appointment, transfer and posting of officers to the Governors for approval.
NPF also said rules of executive business for states are framed by the Governor under Article 166 of the constitution.
It pointed out the Supreme Court made it clear, that the Governor shall act in his discretion only in cases as specifically mentioned in the constitution/rule, but that he(governor) shall act on the advice of the council of ministers.
Based on the above interpretation, NPF said the Governor was bound to accept the cabinet decision to approve the amendment to the Rules of Executive Business as there is no ambiguity or any constitutional issue involved.
NPF posed the question “is Nagaland an inferior state? Is Nagaland a subordinate state?” while asserting that the NPF-led government stood for and would uphold under any circumstances, the democratic and constitutional rights of our people.
Welcoming the issue now in public domain, NPF said it also wanted people of Nagaland to know what was going. While lauding the NPCC for having “done everybody a favour” in this regard, NPF however said NPCC’s “intention stands exposed”.
NPF said NPCC resorted to its “old habit” of working for the agenda of others and reiterated the charge that Congress leaders in Nagaland “are the agents of outsiders and not real leaders of the Naga people”.
It said for NPF, the people and grass roots “are the real high command” whose voice it will forever carry.
NPF reiterated that a democratically elected government of the day, was responsible for the actions and responsibilities of government machinery, so it was given responsibility to post government officer in different capacities within the given rules.
Therefore, it said the final authority for posting officers also meant carrying the responsibility of performance and conduct of officers under any eventuality and asked whether the highest constitutional office should be involved in such matters when a democratically elected government was in place?
NPF expressed surprise to observe that NPCC alleged the NPF government was trying to change the rules due to appointment of Vigilance Commissioner as the two were different matters.
It said the ignorance of NPCC and Congress leaders in Nagaland was “once again revealed” and expressed shock on how a political party calling itself “grand old party of India” with over a century of history was “ignorant of the basic facts of governance”.