Cautionary or diversionary

It appears that elections to Urban Local Bodies(ULBs) in Nagaland is proving to be mired in conflict of ideas and interpretations over clauses in the Nagaland Municipal Act 2001 pertaining to the issue of tax on land and building. In response, the Municipal Affairs Department (MAD) pointed out that the particular clause was removed from the NM Act by the NM Act(3rd Amendment) Act 2016. The department clarified that the clause on tax on land and building was removed through section 120(1)(a) which stated that “All references and operative provisions relating to tax on land and buildings, wherever these occur in the Nagaland Municipal Act ,2001 shall be deemed to have been omitted.” The issue took on quite an amusing turn when some of the organisations demanded that the word “omitted” should be replaced with “deleted”. To this bizarre demand, MAD explained that as per legal opinion, “Omission, omitted and deleted” have no difference but ought to be read as having the same meaning and character in the context of amendment of the clause under question. Then the other issue that was raised pertained to rotation of the post of chairperson in some ULBs. This was not included in the NM Act 2001 nor under the NM Act(3rd Amendment)2016 but made rotational in pursuance of the spirit of women reservation. The MAD explained that this was notified as per Section 238 of the NM Act 2001 in order to bring fair play by rotating the post in ULBs in alphabetical order. After various organisations had raised taxation on land and building, it was thought that the issue was resolved after clarification issued by the Municipal Affairs Department(MAD) so as to enable the polls to ULBs. However, another element has been introduced by the Nagaland GBs Federation(NGBF) when it brought out certain legal points. According to the NGBF, the Supreme Court’s directive to conduct polls to ULBs was due to the failure of the state government in convincing the court about the political negotiations between the government of India with Naga National Political Groups(NNPFGs) and that those involved should take responsibility. NGBF said the agreement of 1960(or 16 Point Agreement) signed between the government of India and Naga People’s Convention(NPC) addressed the formation of a legislative assembly with separation of powers from the parliament of India. According to NGBF, Naga customary law as per agreed terms of 1960 does not warrant the creation of Urban Local Bodies(ULBs). It said as per the agreement, village, area and range councils alone can be made operational but Article 243 cannot be applied to Nagaland including the 73rd Amendment. NGBF also pointed out that the NM Act 2001 under (9)(2) in dividing village into wards and the same as in 21(2) of the same Act do not fit into the same scheme of Article 371(A)(1)(a). NGBF also pointed out that the negotiations for solution to the Naga political issue was also discussed at various fora and with state legislators and upon which, it was understood that formation of bicameral house and federal hoho and structuring of administration of the federal hoho is to be decided after securing Naga political solution. In the light of this, NGBF maintained that conducting polls to ULBs at this juncture was not fully the will of Nagas. It also added that if at all everyone is serious about Naga political solution, then the political reality should be made known to the Supreme Court of India.