About Time Parliament Censures the Executive

Mainstream, VOL XLIX, No 51, December 10, 2011

by SHOBHA AGGARWAL

“Sir, I am shocked to see such a brief reply, which is no reply at all. I admit that it is a failure on the part of the Parliament for holding the Government and the Executive accountable for their failure to notify Central Acts for implementation… I feel that the Government and Executive are making a mockery of the Parliament and making a mockery of the legislations.”

—Shri D. Raja, MP Rajya Sabha in response to a written reply on Starred Question No. 244 regarding Enforcement of Central Acts answered on 15.3.2010

 

“Certain Central Acts have not so far been brought into force by the concerned administrative Ministries for various administrative reasons and stage of preparedness, the requisite information in this regard is being collected and will be laid on the Table of the House.”

—Dr M. Veerappa Moily, the then Minister of Law and Justice, in the written response on 15.3.2010 to Shri D. Raja’s query

Shri D. Raja had enquired about the number of Central Acts passed by Parliament and assented to by the President but have not been implemented due to the government’s failure to issue notification to give them the force of a law; and the details of such Acts passed by Parliament since 1995 indicating the names of the Act, the Ministry concerned, year of passing the Act and the reason for failure to issue notification to enforce the law. Dr Moily assured the House that within two months the compilation of such laws would be furnished along with the reasons why the rules have not been framed or notification has not been issued with regard to their implementation.

Arm-chair Anarchists or Executive?

SHOCKINGLY, as per the information available on the website of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, Government Assurances, Rajya Sabha, the assurance is still pending as on 9.11.2011. Conceding that the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 and the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 have not been notified, Dr Moily had told the Rajya Sabha on 15.03.2010 that there is no proper compilation of Central Acts awaiting notification. Even after almost twenty months the compilation is not ready! Ironically Dr K. Keshava Rao, MP, had at that time cautioned the House during the discussion:

“This House must be the leader of the entire process and must be able to either dictate to the Government, or tell the Government, or advise the Government as to what is happening to the Bills that have been passed here.”

New Despotism of the Executive

IN India the executive power of the Union is vested in the President of India but he is obliged to exercise it on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers. To whom should citizens turn to in situations where Parliament passes laws, the President gives the assent but the executive fails to enforce the Acts through notification for decades? The judiciary has drawn a Laxman Rekha on the subject of directing the Central Government to bring a notification to enforce such Acts. One such valiant attempt was made by Shri A.K. Roy, a Marxist Member of Parliament, who was detained under the National Security Ordinance (2 of 1980) by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad on the ground that he was indulging in activities which were prejudicial to public order. Ten Members of Parliament, one an Independent and the others belonging to various political parties in Opposition, intervened in the petition filed by Shri A.K. Roy in the Supreme Court. The issue of non-notification of Section 3 of the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 was raised before the Court. This Section affords to the detenu an assurance that his case will be considered fairly and objectively by an impartial tribunal. It was argued that since the Central Government had failed to exercise its power within a reasonable time, the Court should issue a mandamus calling upon it to discharge its duty without any further delay. The majority (3:2) judgement delivered by a Constitution Bench of five judges, while refusing the petitioner’s prayer, held:

“Our decision on this question should not be construed as putting a seal of approval on the delay caused by the Central Government in bringing the provisions of Section 3 of the 44th Amendment Act into force. That Amendment received the assent of the President on April 30, 1979 and more than two-and-a-half years have already gone by without the Central Government issuing a notification for bringing section 3 of the Act into force. But we find ourselves unable to intervene in a matter of this nature by issuing a mandamus to the Central Government obligating it to bring the provisions of Section 3 into force. The Parliament having left to the unfettered judgment of the Central Government the question as regards the time for bringing the provisions of the 44th Amendment into force, it is not for the Court to compel the Government to do that which, according to the mandate of the Parliament, lies in its discretion to do when it considers it opportune to do it. The executive is responsible to the Parliament and if the Parliament considers that the executive has betrayed its trust by not bringing any provision of the Amendment into force, it can censure the executive. It would be quite anomalous that the inaction of the executive should have the approval of the Parliament and yet we should show our disapproval of it by issuing a mandamus.

“… the Parliament could not have intended that the Central Government may exercise a kind of veto over its constituent will by not ever bringing the Amendment or some of its provisions into force. The Parliament having seen the necessity of introducing into the Constitution a provision like Section 3 of the 44th Amendment, it is not open to the Central Government to sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy of that section. If only the Parliament were to lay down an objective standard to guide and control the discretion of the Central Government in the matter of bringing the various provisions of the Act into force, it would have been possible to compel the Central Government by an appropriate writ to discharge the function assigned to it by the Parliament.”

The Way Forward

AFTER A.K. Roy’s case, several petitioners in the last thirty years have moved the Supreme Court to get laws enforced by issuing mandamus to the Central Government. In all these cases the laws had been kept in suspended animation for a considerable length of time. Thus we have judgements in Aeltemesh Rein Vs. Union of India [AIR 1988 SC 1768]; Union of India Vs. Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan [Civil Appeal No. decided on 29.04.2002] and Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3988-3989 of 2001 decided on 08.10.2003]. In all these cases the Supreme Court relying on the Constitution Bench judgement in A.K. Roy, declined to issue direction to the government to enforce Acts through notification.

It is a sad commentary on the functioning of the executive that Central Acts await enforce-ment through notification for several decades. Worse, even the complete list of such laws has still been not been laid in Parliament by the Central Government in spite of assurances made in the Rajya Sabha on 15.03.2010. The only way forward is for Parliament to censure the executive.

The author is an Advocate and the Joint Secretary, Public Interest Litigation Watch Group, New Delhi. Her e-mail is pilwatchgroup@gmail.com

Also At: http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article3199.html

Legislating in Indian Parliament — Fact and Fiction: A Case Study

Mainstream, VOL XLIX, No 37, September 3, 2011

by SHOBHA AGGARWAL

“The question is, who drafts the law and who makes the law? I submit that the time-honoured practice is that the Executive drafts a Bill and places it before Parliament and that Parliament debates and adopts the Bill with amendments if necessary. In the process of adoption of the Bill, there will be opportunities for Shri Anna Hazare and others to present their views to the Standing Committee to which this Bill has been referred by the Hon’ble Speaker. The Standing Committee as well as Parliament can modify the Bill if they so desire. However, I am not aware of any constitutional philosophy or principle that allows anyone to question the sole prerogative of Parliament to make a law.”

— Statement made by PM Manmohan Singh in the Lok Sabha on August 17, 2011 on Anna Hazare’s arrest

 

“But if laws are not to be made in Parliament but by some social activists in a maidan, how-ever well meaning they are, outside Parliament, then it is beyond my comprehension.”

— P. Chidambaram, Union Home Minister, at a press conference at Shastri Bhawan on August 16, 2011

During the recent campaign spearheaded by Shri Anna Hazare for an effective Lokpal Bill, at least half-a-dozen Cabinet Ministers of the present UPA II Government pontificated to the effect that legislation is the business of Parliament and that laws can’t be drafted in maidans through hunger strikes; on how some members of civil society have no business to take on the role of law-making even it be an effective Lokpal Bill. One Cabinet Minister after another, one spokes- person after another of the principal party within the UPA appeared to have rediscovered the virtues of the Indian Constitution, democracy and Parliament representing the will of the people.

But what exactly is the reality about legislating in Parliament? We wish to share our experience on how successive Central govern-ments subverted—rather than legislated—the process of law-making over the last sixteen years.

The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (DRA, 1995) was passed by both Houses of Parliament, and received the assent of the President of India on August 23, 1995. It is not being enforced ostensibly because of successive Central governments getting blackmailed by the vested interests! In the last sixteen years of the legislative history, the Union Ministry of Urban Develop-ment (MoUD) has either blatantly ignored the sagacious recommendations or willfully not implemented the assurances given to several Parliamentary Committees (including the Committee on Petitions; Committee on Assurances; Committee on Subordinate Legislation; and three Parliamentary Standing Committees). The non-notification of the DRA, 1995 by the MoUD is contemptuous of Parliament, the aforementioned Parliamentary Committees, as also the President of India. Even the pronouncements of the judiciary—particularly during the last decade- and-a-half—urging the government for immediate rental law reform, including payment of market rent by tenants, have not been heeded to. The collective contempt shown on this issue by the government towards Parliament, Parliamentary Committees, the President of India and Supreme Court of India can only be matched by the contempt towards these institutions shown by the Maoists and the Naxalities.

By not issuing the relevant notification within a reasonable period, the executive effectively assumes the law-making functions. This is unconstitutional since the power to make laws rests with the legislature, not the executive. One of the defining features of our Constitution is the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary. In the last three decades instances of judicial activism—usurping the turf of the legislature and executive—have rightfully come under flak. It is our earnest hope the power of the legislature, for example, through non-notification of Acts passed by Parliament and even assented to by the President of India are brought to a halt. Getting the DRA, 1995 to be notified could be the first step in that direction.

Blatant Lies in Parliament and Courts

CONSIDER the averments and assurances solemnly made in Parliament and before the Delhi High Court in the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010:

 

“After formation of the 14th Lok Sabha the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997 is required to be considered by the Government afresh and steps have been initiated in that direction.”

– Shri Ajay Maken, then Minister of State, MoUD, in the Rajya Sabha on 15.11.2007 and again Shri S. Jaipal Reddy, then Minister of Urban Development, in the Lok Sabha on 7.3.2008

“Draft Cabinet note was prepared and submitted to the competent authority for approval prior to taking up the proposal for amendment of the Act with the Parliament after approval by the Cabinet.”

– Shri R.R. Sharma, Dy. Secy., MoUD, to the Rajya Sabha Sectt. on 27.3.2009

“After the formation of the present Govern-ment further process of the Delhi Rent (Amend-ment) Bill, 1997 and official amendments thereto are under consideration of competent authority in the Ministry.”

– Union of India in its Counter Affidavit filed in July, 2010 in writ petition titled Shobha Aggarwal and others Versus Union of India and another

“…Draft Cabinet Note to process the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997 and official amendments thereto is under consideration of competent authority in the Ministry.”

– Shri R.R. Sharma, Dy. Secy., MoUD, to the Rajya Sabha Sectt. on 10.9.2010

To check the veracity of these assurances we decided to procure the relevant official file pertaining to this legislation. Perusing through the pages of the file [File No. 12-1/2004-UCU containing draft Cabinet Note and official amendments in the draft Bill)] pertaining to the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997, it was found to our horror that from the period December 2006 to December 2010, that is, for four long years the file was kept in cold storage by the Minister for Urban Development (UDM). There is not a single noting either by any bureaucrat in the Ministry—Section Officer, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Director, Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Secretary or by the UDM or Minister of State for Urban Development. It is patently clear that there was no application of mind by any official or Minister on the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997 during these four years. The official records speak for themselves. The Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997 was not under consideration at all; there was no effort by the competent authority even to approve the draft Cabinet Note submitted to it. Had parliamentarians been vigilant, the concerned Ministers would have faced privilege motions for lying in Parliament. While Parliament and the Delhi High Court were being informed during these four years that the Bill was under conside-ration the truth is that for a consideration (courtesy vested interests) the Bill was not under consideration.

In December 2005 the PM himself launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) with much fanfare and with the stated objective of urban development. The policy document placed in Parliament clearly enunciates the mandatory reforms—including rental law reform—to be implemented as a precondition for the release of funds. However, on 10.12.2009 the Cabinet Committee on Infra-structure, of which the PM is a member, surre-ptitiously decided to exempt the Government of NCT of Delhi from rental law reform. It was an act of fratricide—the father of economic reforms in 1991, and who as the PM announced the JNNURM policy in 2005, himself murdering the very ideas he cherished and propounded in 2009.

Having subverted the DRA, 1995 by not enforcing it by notification for sixteen long years, Dr Manmohan Singh and his Cabinet team have no right to lecture citizens on how laws are made!

The author is an Advocate and the Joint Secretary, Public Interest Litigation Watch Group, New Delhi.

http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2987.html

Subverting Right To Information — The Sarkari Way

Mainstream, VOL XLIX, No 27, June 25, 2011

by SHOBHA AGGARWAL

June 15 marked the sixth anniversary of the President’s assent to the Right to Information Act, 2005. The following article is an attempt to evaluate the efficacy of this Act. Having filed over 500 RTI applications in the last six years, the Public Interest Litigation Watch Group (of which the author is the Joint Secretary)
is sharing with our readers the fate of one such RTI application.

Outraged at the loot of the exchequer under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), the Public Interest Litigation Watch Group (PILWG) filed a series of Right to Information (RTI) applications. On May 21, 2010 an RTI application was filed with the Cabinet Secretariat asking the following question:

Reference the Cabinet Committee on Infra-structure (CCI) meeting held on 10.12.2009 granting exemption from implementation of inter alia rental law reforms to the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) under the JNNURM.

A. Please let us know:

1. Name and designation of all those who attended this CCI meeting?

2. Did the Union Minister of Urban Develop-ment/Secretary, Ministry of Urban Develop-ment (MoUD) apprise all those present in the meeting of the mandatory condition of rental law reform under the JNNURM policy—announced by the Prime Minister in December 2005—before sanctioning of the JNNURM funds to the GNCTD?

3. Was the PM present in this meeting?

4. Can the CCI overrule the JNNURM policy decided upon by the Union Cabinet and announced by the PM in December 2005?

5. Even if the GNCTD had to be exempted from inter alia rental law reforms, what steps has the Union Government taken from September 16, 2005 till date to get the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997 passed in Parliament?

6. Has Parliament been informed of this shift in the JNNURM policy vis-à-vis the GNCTD? If so, when and the details thereof?

7. Was the public informed through any Press Information Bureau release about the rental law reform exemption to the GNCTD? If so, kindly provide us with a copy of the press release and press clipping, if any.

B. Kindly provide us with photocopies of full files, both correspondence and notings; as also the full deliberations and decisions taken by the CCI in its meeting on 10.12.2009 on the afore-mentioned issues.

The Cabinet Secretariat (CS), in its reply dated 14.07.2010 through the Central Public Infor-mation Officer (CPIO), answered none of the eight questions; and transferred the application to the MoUD. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), CS, vide decision dated 07.09.2010, upheld the order of the CPIO, CS. Thus no reply was forthcoming from the CS to any of our queries. Amazing!

The MoUD, in its reply dated 10.09.2010 through the CPIO, refused to divulge the name and designation of all those Ministers who attended this CCI meeting and whether—hold your breath—the PM was present in this meeting! It also denied photocopies of full files, both correspondence and notings; as also the full deliberations and decisions taken by the CCI in its meeting on 10.12.2009. The FAA, MoUD, in its order dated 16.11.2010, upheld the decision of the CPIO to stonewall our queries. So much for transparency and accountability of public servants of the ‘Yes Minister’ variety!

Crucial Decision of Central Information Commission Subverted by the Powers That Be

THE Central Information Commission (CIC), in its decision announced on 30.08.2010 as adjunct to Complaint no. CIC/WB/C/2010/000120 dated 14.05.2010 in the case of Shri Venkatesh Nayak and Shri Shekhar Singh v. DOPT, had held:

“This would imply that exemption u/s 8 (1) (i) will not apply to deliberations leading to formulation of a policy framework till such time as the draft is submitted to the Cabinet Secretariat, with all its necessary attachments for submission to the Cabinet, which would then be a final form given to the draft. Thereafter, this draft would remain exempt from disclosure till such time as the decision has been taken and action to be taken thereon is ‘complete and over’.”

On the basis of the aforementioned CIC decision a fresh RTI application was filed on February 7, 2011 asking for files pertaining to the CCI decision. It was explained in the application that as the matter of the CCI decision on 10.12.2009 was now complete and over, it does not qualify for exemption. In utter contempt of the CIC decision both the CPIO and FAA in the MoUD have refused to provide us with a copy of the file even sixteen months after the CCI decision. Who all are being protected for their acts of omission and commission? No guesses are required!

Why is the File being Withheld?

IT is amazing that both the Cabinet Secretariat and Union Ministry of Urban Development are blocking access to the public of the crucial file pertaining to the CCI decision wherein the GNCTD was exempted from mandatory rental law reform and thousands of crores of rupees could be released to the GNCTD under the JNNURM. It may be mentioned that the CCI in December 2009 consisted of 15 Ministers including the PM; Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Minister of Finance, Shri P. Chidambaram, Minister of Home Affairs, Shri S. Jaipal Reddy, then Minister of Urban Develop-ment, Shri A. Raja, then Minister of Communi-cations and Information Technology (now incarcerating in jail), among others.

There are three likely scenarios which necessi-tate the Government of India to desperately hide this vital document from public gaze.

Scene 1: The alleged CCI meeting on 10.12.2009 was attended only by the then Minister of Urban Development, Shri S. Jaipal Reddy, in which case the decision cannot hold forth and has to be reversed at the earliest and the concerned Cabinet Minister should exit from the Union Cabinet immediately. After all, he has only duplicated—under the pretext of Cabinet sanction and the PM’s tacit concurrence—what A. Raja did in the 2G telecom scam. In fact if this scenario is the reality, then the 2G scam would pale into insignificance before the JNNURM scam.

Scene 2: If the PM had actually chaired the CCI meeting wherein the decision to exempt the GNCTD from the mandatory rental law reform was taken, then it is thoroughly embarrassing for the father of economic reforms in India to be reversing the UPA’s reform policy; in which case he has no moral right to continue as the PM anymore.

Scene 3: The alleged CCI meeting never took place; so the file pertaining to exemption of the GNCTD does not exist and hence is not being provided under the RTI Act.

The Cabinet’s Code of Omerta

THE public has every right to know the para-meters surrounding a Cabinet meeting, namely, what constitutes a quorum; whether Ministers who are members of the Cabinet have to be compulsorily present in the meeting or they could send a note by way of an opinion on issues in the agenda; whether a single Union Minister can decide on behalf of all other absentee members of a Cabinet Committee; whether such Cabinet meetings are held surreptitiously and no press release is issued; or the details of crucial decisions taken are made public; and finally why should the file pertaining to a Cabinet decision—which is complete and over—be not made public. Keeping Cabinet decisions secretive in this era of the RTI Act gives credence to the public assumption that the government has a lot to hide for its wrongdoings to save its own skin. But then, truth like pregnancy has a habit of surfacing sooner rather than later!

Even at this late hour the government could own up the acts of omission and commission and ensure that the guilty would be punished straightway.
Will the PM break his silence or will the code of omerta reign supreme?

The author is an Advocate and Joint Secretary, Public Interest Litigation Watch Group, New Delhi. She can be contacted at e-mail: pilwatchgroup@ gmail.com

Also At: http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2856.html

An Open Letter to the Prime Minister

Mainstream, Vol XLIX, No 15, April 2, 2011

by Shobha Aggarwal

Respected Sir,

In December 2005 your good-self had launched the flagship scheme, Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), with the stated objective of urban development. The policy document clearly enunciates the mandatory reforms to be implemented by the States and civic agencies during 2005-12. To receive funds—Rs 60,000 crores in all earmarked by the Central Government—under the JNNURM, the states and civic agencies have to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) clearly enunciating the time-frame within which the mandatory reforms would be achieved. One of the mandatory reforms under the JNNURM is of rental laws. On September 11, 2007 an MoA was signed between the Union Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) or Union Ministry of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation and the Government of the NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) and others in which four pages pertaining to the mandatory reform of Rent Control Act have been kept unfilled.

On February 2, 2009 in reply to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Comptroller and Auditor General of India informed that:

Audit has concluded that as the MoA executed by the MoUD was conditional and deficient, the release of Central Assistance to GNCTD was irregular.

The Central Government continues to provide funds to the GNCTD under the JNNURM in complete violation of the terms and conditions of the JNNURM and even granting one-time exemptions to various ongoing projects. The GNCTD has received several thousand crores of rupees from JNNURM funds—primarily to spruce up the city of Delhi for the Common-wealth Games 2010.

During the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 while we at the Public Interest Litigation Watch Group were campaigning against the release of the JNNURM funds to the GNCTD till the rental law reform was carried out, the MoUD kept insisting that the MoA with the GNCTD is under further negotiation/finalisation of some element including rent control. However, we were shocked to learn through a communication, dated April 19, 2010, received from the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, that having regard to the fact inter-alia the preparatory steps required to be taken for the Commonwealth Games, the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure (CCI) in its meeting held on December 10, 2009 granted exemption to the GNCTD from implementation of rental law reform! In fact, all the JNNURM funding to the GNCTD during the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 prior to this CCI decision got legitimised!! And another quiet burial for rental law reform!!! The fact is that if the mandatory reforms are to be buried six fathoms deep—as in the case of Delhi—then the entire JNNURM flagship scheme falls flat on its face. The Government of India might as well dole out funds through the regular budget rather than create an illusion of funds being given in lieu of the stated mandatory reforms all in the name of urban renewal. And why should the holding of the Commonwealth Games in Delhi be touted as a good enough excuse to release JNNURM funds for projects unrelated to urban renewal like Connaught Place renovation?

You would recall that in 1995 the then Prime Minister of India, P.V. Narasimha Rao, had made efforts to get the MoUD to notify the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (DRA 1995). This could not materialise as the general elections were round the corner in early 1996 and there was an apprehension in government circles about the violation of Model Code of Conduct were the notification to be issued. The apprehension was unfounded.

At that time a section of the tenant-traders in the old markets of Delhi were pressing for some changes in the DRA 1995. Keeping this in mind the government introduced the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997 in the Rajya Sabha. This Bill got referred to the Standing Committee of Parliament on Urban and Rural Development which submitted its report suggesting some changes in the 1997 Amendment Bill on December 21, 2000. The government accepted all the recommendations of this Committee on April 3, 2001. During the period 2001 to 2003 on several occasions notice for moving official amendments to the Amendment Bill of 1997 (pending in the Rajya Sabha) were accordingly issued to the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. The Bill, however, could not come up for discussion though it was listed for consideration and passage. Thereafter no notices were issued during the monsoon session and winter session of 2003. After the constitution of the 14th Lok Sabha and formation of new government, the file along with note for the Cabinet was submitted in August 2004 for kind consideration/approval of the Union Minister for Urban Development (UDM). The matter is still pending with the UDM. Sir, the public would like to know for how long can a Union Cabinet Minister sit on a file without taking any decision—six years, ten years or till eternity? For how long can a file be kept away from public scrutiny? Why is the transparency in administration and governance being given a go-by? Why is this serious flaw being glossed over even by the PMO?

•

EARLIER, attempts were made by Common Cause to get the DRA 1995 notified by filing a case in the Delhi High Court in 1997; because of difference of opinion between the learned judges of the High Court on whether a writ of mandamus could or could not be issued directing the Central Government to notify the DRA 1995, the matter went to the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court in its judgement dated October 8, 2003 declined to issue a writ of mandamus to the Central Government to notify the DRA 1995, as it was in the domain of the executive to do so.

In May 2003 a petition was filed by the Common Cause before the Committee on Petitions, Rajya Sabha regarding the early passage of the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997 in the Rajya Sabha. The Committee in its Hundred and Nineteenth Report on the petition presented to the Rajya Sabha on June 7, 2004 observed that the Government has not set a healthy precedent by deferring enforcement of a law passed by Parliament in this case the Delhi Rent Act, 1995—so much so that it has not taken any effective steps to ensure early passage of Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997 …

Even as late as January 2009 the Committee for the Repeal of Delhi Rent Control Act had petitioned to the Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha praying that the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997 be brought to the notice of the Rajya Sabha for early enactment of the legislation. The comments of the MoUD to our petition reveal that even after fifteen years of the passage of DRA 1995 there is total apathy—almost bordering on contempt of Parliament—for immediate notification of the Act. In fact the MoUD reply is a confession that the Ministry has taken no concrete steps in the last seven years for rental law reforms.

The Rajya Sabha website shows that the MoUD had given two assurances on the floor of the House in Rajya Sabha on the issue of notification of Delhi Rent Act, 1995. In the first assurance (No. 197/366) given in 2002, 24 extensions have been taken by MoUD. In the second assurance (No. 212/208) given in 2007, five extensions have been taken by MoUD.

Finally, in January 2010 we filed a writ petition titled Shobha Aggarwal and others versus Union of India and another WP(C) 516/2010 in the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and praying for compensation to the property owners for getting a pittance as rent over the last five decades. But this court case should not be now used as an excuse by the powers that be that the matter is subjudice. Actually this writ petition of ours neither deals with DRA 1995 nor with the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997. We used this strategy primarily to ensure that the government does not continue to show masterly inactivity—and this time around by invoking the lame excuse of the matter being subjudice. It is not.

Sir, it is contempt of both Parliament as well as the President of India that the DRA 1995 which has been unanimously passed by Parliament and assented to by the President of India on August 23, 1995 is not being notified. The ensuing masterly inactivity on this front is an assault on the Constitution of India. Thus for the last sixteen years the DRA 1995 stays un-notified. Both the High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court of India in the early years of this decade have shied from asking the government to notify the Act. There has been no protest in the last sixteen years by any one group against notification of Delhi Rent Act, 1995. You being the father of economic reforms in India may we ask you why the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 is not being notified? Even as late March 2011 the Cabinet papers pertaining to exemption of Delhi from rental law reform are being hidden from public domain even with the Right to Information Act in place. This scam around the JNNURM would pale the 2G scam into insignificance.

Yours sincerely,

Shobha Aggarwal

Public Interest Litigation Watch Group

Email: pilwatchgroup@gmail.com

Also At: http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2662.html