After the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Peren had dismissed the complaint case against chief minister T.R. Zeliang’s educational qualification on July 29, on the ground of being barred by time limitation, the petitioners have filed a criminal revision petition before the Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court (GHC), challenging the decision.
At the hearing Thursday, senior in the Supreme Court advocate, K.N. Balgopal representing the petitioners said they were within the limitation period as per the Supreme Court(SC)and High Court (HC)orders.
Balgopal informed the judge that in the event the case goes in their favor, they would not want to revert the case to JMFC Peren for trail.
Balgopal maintained that magistrate, who was asked to decide only the question of limitation, had gone beyond the brief by making remarks against the petitioners, accusing them of political vendetta.
He further said when the HC had already noted that the petitioners had a locus standi on the matter, the magistrate by casting aspersions on the petitioners, virtually exceeded her jurisdiction by interfering in the HC order which the SC had accepted.
Balgopal said in the objection filed by the respondent before the JMFC Peren, a line was added claiming that Hon’ble HC has not decided in any of the issues raised, giving the impression that the HC has given the liberty to the magistrate to re-hear the issue whose merit had been settled by the High Court.
Balgopal said if the judicial precedence or decisions of the High Court were ignored, a state of confusion would be created in the administration of justice and that the constitutional authority of the HC would be undermined. “I leave the matter to the High Court to decide the issue separately,” he added.
He said this sentence that the HC had not decided on the issue was actually missing in the SC order. The advocate therefore maintained that the respondent T.R Zeliang, by interpolating the SC order had committed contempt of court, and also in support of the interpolation, he (Zeliang) had filed an affidavit before the magistrate, amounting to another offence of perjury before the Peren Court.
He said even though the judgments were tendered to the JMFC Peren and read out at length and if the judgments were heeded to, the petition would not have been dismissed.
After hearing the senior advocate, justice LS Jamir of the Kohima Bench High Court fixed September 14 as the next date of hearing.