As per the statements emanating from offices of the two major political parties in Nagaland there appears to be some confusion over the legal interpretation of the term Office of Profit and whether certain offices are exempted from the Nagaland State Legislative Members (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1964. Both the NPF and Congress have interpreted to their liking on what should constitute an office of profit so much so that for the ruling NPF the Leader of the Opposition is disqualified while the Congress party has proved the innocence of its leader and instead disqualified the Chief Minister. In a way the fact that both are referring to the same legal material but arriving at different conclusions may mean only one thing, the ambiguity of the law itself. Therefore rather than taking pot shots at each other the State legislators should now sit together and resolve the nitty-gritty legal points and get on with the constitutional assigned duty of running the government whether as Chief Minister or as an Opposition Leader.
The ploy of the Opposition Congress in Nagaland to unseat Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio from his chair appears to have taken a reverse route. While the Congress may have caught Rio on the defensive it has to be remembered that the allurement for office is a larger political issue and goes much beyond the likes of Sonia Gandhi, Amar Singh, Neiphiu Rio and I. Imkong. If the Congress bungled by jumping the gun too soon the NPF too cannot be oblivious to the fact that an Assembly or for that matter Parliament will become a sheer mockery if the Office of the Leader of the Opposition is derided merely to score a few political points.
More than the occupant, it is the office that counts in a functioning democracy. As in the case of Nagaland, therefore if at all the office of the Leader of the Opposition has not been exempted under (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1964, it is most unfortunate. The NPF statement that “the Leader of Opposition I Imkong is the prime target for disqualification for holding office of profit”, is therefore highly inappropriate and lacks political maturity. Going by this logic of the NPF, any one who occupies the office of the Leader of the Opposition in Nagaland will be disqualified even if tomorrow the person happens to be Rio. Does it then also mean that Nagaland should therefore do away with this all important office? This legal lacuna regarding the office of the Leader of the Opposition must be corrected, and hopefully this will be done when the special session of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly sits on April 4.
On the larger issue of the Office of Profit, the absence of clarity is precisely the major cause for the current controversy. Both the DAN and Opposition Congress MLAs have a responsibility to come forward and deliberate in clearing this ambiguity but without in anyway circumventing the letter and spirit of the constitution.
