KOHIMA: The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice has advocated for the establishment of a separate High Court for the State of Nagaland.
The recommendation was made in the committee’s 141st Report, presented to both Houses of Parliament on February 7, focusing on the topic of “Judicial Infrastructure in the North-Eastern States of India”, a legal news web portal reported.
During interactions with the committee, the Kohima Bar Association highlighted the need for a separate High Court for Nagaland.
It was noted that while other states like Tripura, Meghalaya, and Manipur, which were under the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court in 1971, have since established their own High Courts, Nagaland, which has been under the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court since 1963, lacks its own High Court.
The committee endorsed the demand for a separate High Court for Nagaland, urging the Ministry of Law and Justice to collaborate with the Ministry of Home Affairs to address this issue.
Emphasizing the crucial role of the state in ensuring access to justice for all citizens, the committee stressed the necessity of adequate judicial infrastructure for efficient dispensation of justice.
It highlighted the current state of judicial infrastructure in the Northeast as a “work in progress” and called for substantial improvements.
Concerns were raised regarding the delay in fund disbursement for judicial infrastructure projects due to revised procedural guidelines under the Public Financial Management System (PFMS).
The committee noted challenges faced by Northeastern states in accessing funds under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS), hindering the progress of essential projects.
While commending the efforts of the Department of Justice in ensuring timely fund release and PFMS compliance, the committee recommended relaxation of guidelines under the CSS for states facing genuine difficulties in implementation.
It also urged consideration of factors such as remote location, hilly terrain, and limited railway connectivity in the North-East while prescribing fund release modalities.
Given the funding pattern under the CSS, where the Centre contributes 90% and the state 10%, the committee observed difficulties faced by states in meeting their share.
