Collateral damage

It was somewhat of a surprise when the state assembly or in other words, the opposition-less assembly passed the Nagaland Municipal Act (Repeal Bill 2023), so as to ‘facilitate’ the repeal of the contentious Nagaland Municipal Act 2001. It may be recalled that the strong opposition to the Nagaland Municipal Act 2001 and subsequent amendments arose when various apex tribe bodies maintained that the Act challenged the validity of Article 371A as it subsumed the latter through the 74th Amendment. The current issue is rooted in the Nagaland Municipal Act of 2001, amended in 2006 to provide for 33% reservation for women in keeping with Article 243(T) of the Constitution. The amended Act also empowers municipal bodies to collect land and building taxes. All apex tribe organizations have taken the stand that the clause for collection of tax, go against their customary laws. In April 2016, the debate was taken to another level when women activists took the case to the Supreme Court the through a Special Leave Petition challenging the constitutionality of a 2012 resolution by the Nagaland Assembly exempting the state from the reservation. The Naga Mothers Association and other advocates of the women’s quota have contended that the 74th amendment of the Constitution, which provides for 33% reservation for women in municipalities, supersedes Article 371(A). They have argued that exemptions under Article 371(A) extend only to Acts framed by Parliament, whereas the reservation flows from a constitutional amendment. Though this is a valid argument, it is also to note that the Nagaland GBs Federation, had raised a pertinent point in stating that Article 371A is a constitutional act of parliament which clearly states that “no Act of parliament” can be applied to Nagaland unless so okayed by a resolution passed with requisite majority by the state assembly. Also, Article 371A was inserted into the Part XXI of the Indian Constitution in the year 1962 whereas the 74th amendment was passed only in 1993. The GBs Federation also implied that the Nagaland Legislative Assembly which passed the Nagaland Municipal Act 2001 had wrongly invited the provision under the 74th Amendment without understanding or realizing that by doing so, the legislators had weakened or compromised the legal validity of Article 371A by subsuming the sanctity of the special provisions. The proponents of the33% women reservation, the leaders of the Naga Mothers Association (NMA), at a meeting of some women leaders opposed and questioned the resolution of the 14th Nagaland Legislative Assembly in passing the Nagaland Municipal Act (Repeal Bill 2023). The association also took to task the two women legislators for not making their stand and opposing the resolution. The NMA statement also cautioned that the 14th NLA could attract response from the Supreme Court since the Nagaland Municipal Act 2001 continues to be with the court and therefore a sub-judice matter. It may be concluded that while the focus of the various apex tribe organizations was about preserving the customary laws and traditions which are protected under Article 371A, the NMA on the other hand, insists that 33% women reservation should be implemented in view of it being brought under the 74th Amendment Act. Thus, by implication, the issue could turn out to be a debate on whether Article 371A can protect the state against constitutional obligation of the 74th Amendment or vice versa. The case or debate is not a gender issue but one that will determine whether the special act of parliament- Article 371A will remain as a unique law or be done away with as a bad law.