Following accusation from NPF, NDPP has clarified that it did not file any FIR along with BJP against NPF president Dr. Shürhozelie Liezietsu for allegedly giving an inflammatory speech during an election rally at Kohima recently.
In a statement issued by its media & communication committee, NDPP claimed that along with BJP it had only filed complaint with returning officer of Nagaland parliamentary constituency and Election Commission of India (ECI) against Dr. Shürhozelie for violating Section 3 of election model code of conduct (MCC), Section 125 of the Representation of People’s Act (RPA), 1951 and Section 153A of Indian Penal Code (IPC). NDPP also clarified that the complaint was based on reports published in the local dailies, wherein it was reported that the statement was made by Dr. Shürhozelie during the campaign for NPF candidate for the May 28 Lok Sabha by-election at Ura Academy, Kohima on May 15.
Referring to Dr. Shürhozelie’s claim that his statement was made to protect Article 25 of the Constitution of India on freedom of religion, NDPP said it is unfounded as Section 1 of Article 25 of the constitution clearly guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion “subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion”.
Clarifying that NDPP-BJP did not refute or challenge what has been laid down constitutionally, it however, pointed out that ever since by-election to the Lok Sabha seat was announced by ECI on April 26, MCC had come into force in the entire State and all provisions under RPA 1951.
Therefore, as Section 1 of Article 25 of the constitution states “Subject to public order…”, it is considered that both MCC as well as RPA are public orders as they define dos and don’ts during the election process, it added.
NDPP further pointed out that even in normal circumstances, IPC, which governs all criminal and other activities, clearly sates under Section 153A that “Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony….” is punishable under law.
Therefore, Dr. Shürhozelie’s claim of propagating and defending Article 25 of the constitution holds no merit as he had violated Section 3 of MCC, Section 125 of RPA ad Section 153A of IPC, NDPP explained.
NDPP urged the opposition party not to try to justify its president’s actions as it was very clear that he had violated laws under the Constitution of India.
The ruling party clarified that PDA was not vindictive in any manner but had only complained to ECI against Dr. Shürhozelie for trying to influence voters on the ground of religion and sought justice as per law from the appropriate authority.
“The president knows very well what he uttered and his taking anticipatory bail speaks volume of his guilt,” it added.