No Constitutional provisions challenged: Naga’s JACWR

KOHIMA:  In response to the recent spurt of articles and statements issued by various individuals and organisations on the issue of women reservation, the Joint Action Committee on Women Reservation has sought to clarify that it had not challenged the provisions enjoyed by the Nagas under Article 371(A) nor the customary law as was projected.
JACWR Convener Abeiu Meru and co-convener Dr Rosemary Dzuvichu, in a press statement, cited the Single Judge Order of October 2011, which had categorically held that women reservation in municipalities, has nothing to do with Article 371 (A).
The Committee reminded all Naga leaders including the different tribal heads that in more than a 1,000 Naga villages, 25 per cent reservation for women is being implemented in the Village Development Board (VDB). They added that this is an important part of the traditional Village Councils in every village of many states in the country.
“The state of Nagaland has also implemented the reservation policy for the backward tribes in educational opportunities as well as employment for many decades”, the Committee stated on Monday.
“Despite the existence of customary laws and traditions, including Article 371 (A), all these reservation policies are being implemented and enjoyed by the Nagas, in accordance with the law and constitutional provisions,” the Committee pointed out.
Therefore, likewise, reservation for women is a constitutional mechanism to encourage women to participate actively in the political decision-making bodies of urban governance namely, the Town Committees and Municipal Councils in the state, and has become a legal right for women, the Joint Action Committee  stated.
The Women Reservation Committee has, therefore, urged Naga brothers to “change their mindset and look ahead to a future of equal partnership with their women, who constitute the other half of Nagaland’s population.”
Further, the Committee  asserted that neither the State Government nor the petitioners had asked for a ‘stay on holding of elections throughout the whole court process, whether be it in the High Court of the Supreme Court till date.’ (UNI)