In a landmark judgment the Kohima Bench of the Guwahati High Court has ruled that it is not permissible either for the State Executive or the Legislature to allow a nominated member to cast vote in any meetings of the Municipality or Town Council including such meetings, which may be held to elect the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson. Taking cognizance of Article 243 of the Constitution the court has clearly stated that a nominated member shall have no right to vote in the meetings of the municipality.
The court has however ruled that an ex-officio member (usually the MLA of the area) would continue to enjoy the right to vote in the municipal bodies.
Based on the above observation the court has quashed the State government notification dated January 3, 2005, which had given nominated members the right to vote.
It may be mentioned that the Governor of Nagaland Shyamal Datta had returned the Nagaland Municipal (First Amendment) Bill, 2005 back to the Nagaland Legislative Assembly (NLA) recently on August 12 with the ‘request’ that the House reconsider framing of the Bill in a way that fulfilled the requirements laid down under Articles 243-R of the Constitution relating to the voting rights of nominated members. The recent court ruling in effect upholds the position taken by the constitutional Head of the State.
While it is open to interpretation on whether a nominated person should be given voting rights, there can be no doubt that there appeared to be a major anomaly on the part of the government while nominating members to the Chumukedima Town Council. The court has rightly quashed this error in judgment on the part of the government. Nothing can be more absurd on the way the three members were nominated to the CTC without fulfilling the basic criteria required under Section 21 (4) of the Nagaland Municipal Act. According to this clause the government could nominate only such persons having special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration. As per documents available with The Morung Express, one of the persons nominated by the government is a retired driver under a police project, government of Nagaland. The other two include a former Chairman of the Chumukedima Village Council and a retired Havildar of the Nagaland Armed Police. The court observed that such persons could not be nominated as per the strict provisions of the Municipal Act for they had no knowledge or experience in Municipal administration. Taking exception to the government’s assertion in its affidavit that it was not necessary for a person to have special knowledge or experience, the court has rightly observed that this ‘mandatory’ criterion appeared to have been completely lost sight of by the government in appointing the three nominated members and ruled that the argument given by the government could not be sustained.
The quashing of the two State notifications by the judiciary should be seen as enforcing the supremacy of law. Along with the Legislature and the Executive, the Judiciary is one of the three basic organs of the State. It has a vital role to play in the functioning of the State, and more so, in a democratic State based on rule of law. While it is true that the court should not direct or advise the executive in matters of policy, the State should also not transgress its constitutional limits or statutory powers. The injunction by the court over the State government’s decision should therefore be seen as a sign of good health of our democracy.
