Parliamentary Standing Committee Recommends Separate High Court For Nagaland

The above recommendation came in the 141st Report published today which was presented to both Houses of Parliament on the subject "Judicial Infrastructure in the North-Eastern States of India"

The Committee noted, “During the interactions with the Committee, the Kohima Bar Association made a request for a separate High Court for the State of Nagaland. The president of Bar informed that the States like Tripura, Meghalaya and Manipur which came under the jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court in 1971 have now established their own High Courts. However, the State of Nagaland which has been under the jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court since 1963 does not have its own High Court.”

“The Committee feels that there is merit in the demand for a separate High Court by State of Nagaland and the Ministry of Law and Justice must coordinate with Ministry of Home Affairs to address the demand,” it recommended.

The Committee emphasized the fundamental role of the state in ensuring access to justice for all citizens and stressed the necessity of adequate judicial infrastructure for efficient dispensation of justice. It lamented the current state of judicial infrastructure in the North-East, labeling it as a "work in progress" and urging for substantial improvements.

Regarding funding for judicial infrastructure projects, the Committee raised concerns about the delay in fund disbursement due to revised procedural guidelines under the Public Financial Management System (PFMS). It noted that several North-Eastern states faced challenges in accessing funds under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS), hindering the progress of crucial projects.

The Report stated, “The Committee is happy to note that the Department of Justice has made commendable efforts to ensure that funds are released to the states on time and that all of them become PFMS compliant. The Committee, however, recommends the Department to approach the MoF to get the guidelines on release of funds under the CSS relaxed, wherever the States are facing genuine difficulties in the implementation of such guidelines.”

The Committee pointed out that apart from general PFMS related issues, the North-Eastern States face other challenges in creation of infrastructure due to their remote location, hilly terrain, availability of unencumbered land.

The Committee further pointed out that the NE States and other hilly States have a short working season which makes movement of men and material difficult over the treacherous terrain and thereby making contract implementation difficult with increased time and cost overruns.

“Because of limited railways connectivity in the region, the cost of transportation becomes much higher, leading to substantial increase in cost of material. Other reasons include late receipt of project proposals and non-receipt of utilization of certificates from the respective state governments. The department should take these factors into account while prescribing the modalities of fund release,” the Committee recommended.

Notably, the funding pattern under the CSS for the 8 North Eastern States and two Himalayan states is 90:10 (Center:State). The Committee observed that in some cases the States are finding it difficult to even contribute 10% of the funds leading to delay in completion of projects.

Accordingly, the Committee recommended the Department, “to explore the possibility of providing a better deal in terms of enhanced allocation of funds and relaxation of spending norms under the Scheme, considering the peculiarities of the NE States.”

“It is further recommended that the 10% of the state quota may also be relaxed for the NE States subject to subsequent recovery from the concerned state, so that the ongoing projects are not stalled for want of such meager amount of money,” it added.

The Committee undertook study visits to all the North-Eastern States (except Mizoram) to assess the infrastructural facilities available in those states. The Committee found that among the North-Eastern States, Meghalaya has performed best in terms of utilization of funds under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for creation of infrastructural facilities for subordinate judiciary.

“The process followed by Meghalaya in terms of compliance of the conditions laid down by the Department of Justice and Ministry of Finance for release of funds, needs to be emulated by others to derive maximum benefit from the Scheme,” the Committee lastly recommended.