NPCC asks NPF Peren division to apologise
Reacting sharply to the statement made by NPF Peren division against senior advocate and former advocate general of Nagaland, K.N. Balagopal– “for stooping so low to come to Peren” to take up the case pertaining to chief minister T.R. Zeliang’s education qualification, NPCC said overlooking the fact that Peren was an important constituent of Nagaland, from which incumbent chief minister represents, such comments was an insult to the people of Peren.
For this, NPCC working president P. Ayang Aonok, in a press release, demanded that the NPF apologies to the people of Peren.
On the allegation that the K.N. Balgopal and his team had to stoop down to appear before a junior magistrate, NPCC said when all the Courts were temples of justice, such comments were an attack on the Court.
Pointing out that the Supreme Court had declined the relief in appeal against the order passed by the Guahati High Court, Kohima bench directing the magistrate to hear the case on point of ‘limitation’, NPCC accused Zeliang of hiding the order and pretending to be invincible.
NPCC said “he should at least now realise the famous words of Thomas Fowler, ‘That no one is above the law’, and rather, he owes an apology to the people instead of attacking the complainant and making aspersions on their counsel and also belittling the people of Peren”.
While taking note of the Judicial Magistrate Peren cautioning Zeliang’s counsel that “no further adjournment will be given and the case will be heard on 28th June 2016”, NPCC alleged that due to this reason, “Zeliang approached the Supreme Court which refused to interfere with the High Court’s Order and thereby giving a huge setback for the chief minister”. While stating that the chief minister’s days appear to be numbered, NPCC said in the event the Magistrate convicts him, Zeliang’s nomination papers would be deemed rejected from the date of filing of the same.
On June 14 last, NPCC said that the counsel (K.N. Balgopal) for the complainant, had pointed out to the court whether “T.R. Zeliang, in the 2018 Assembly Elections, will dare to write in his affidavit before the Election Commission in the column pertaining to educational qualifications that he has passed B.A. Exam in 1979 in the light of the fact that the University and college authority have already furnished documents to show that Mr. Zeliang failed in all the subjects in the year 1979 and didn’t appear in 1980”?
It said that the High Court had on April 25, 2016 “refused to close the case against Zeliang”, which was referred back to the Judicial Magistrate, Peren, to be heard on the point of limitation.
NPCC stated that the “Court had conceded Locus Standi and Jurisdiction to the complainants in this case leaving only the issue of Limitation open to be heard before the Magistrate, before proceeding with the case”.
It further reminded the supporters of T.R. Zeliang that they had “no right to attack the Congress party for voicing out on the issue of dishonesty”. Rather, NPCC has asked the NPF leadership “to see the writings on the wall instead of the Ostrich hiding its head in the sand and can now expect major political upheavals in the state”.
Meanwhile, NPCC further noted the Judicial Magistrate Peren cautioned counsel for Mr. Zeliang that, ‘no further adjournment will be given and the case will be heard on 28th June 2016’. It is with this background that Mr. Zeliang approached the Supreme Court which refused to interfere with the High Court’s Order and thereby giving a huge setback for the Chief Minister. His days appear to be numbered as the Chief Minister as in the event the Magistrate convicts him, then in accordance with law, his nomination papers will be deemed rejected from the date of filing of the same.
NPF clarifies to report
Clarifying to the report published in the local dailies that the Supreme Court (SC) had rejected/dismissed chief minister, T.R. Zeliang’s petition, NPF Legal Cell said that “the heading itself is ambiguous and total misrepresentation of the Supreme Court Order”.
In a press note, NPF convenor legal cell, Achumbemo Kikon clarified that the SC in its order dated June 15, 2016 had “directed the Trial Court to determine the question of limitation and for that purpose the petitioner (CM) need not appear in person and can appear through his counsel”. Kikon said that Court went on to state in its order that “it will be open to the petitioner (CM) to raise all contentions and in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, he (CM) is at liberty to seek legal remedy in accordance with law”.
As such, the legal cell made clear that the said SLP was not dismissed but sent back to the Trial Court with clear directives.
Asserting that, the order could not be construed as dismissed, the cell rather said, “it was a big relief for the chief minister as the opposite party kept on insisting that he should appear in person inside the court room”.
The Supreme Court order “has vindicated the CM to a large extent as the directive given by the Supreme Court of India will definitely be the main guiding principle while deciding the case”. It further reminded that the SC order had actually strengthened CM’s contentions and that there was no reason at all for the opposite group to be jubilant.