Ruckus in Parliament over land bill, Jaitley defends NDA's ordinance route

February 24, 2015

New Delhi, Feb 24: Opposition parties on Tuesday remained adamant on their stance over the land acquisition bill and created a ruckus in Parliament even as the government said it is well within its right to issue ordinances.

Ruckus in Parliament

The Narendra Modi government will introduce the land acquisition amendment bill 2015 to replace the ordinance in Lok Sabha on Tuesday. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance has a commanding majority in Lok Sabha, but is in a minority in Rajya Sabha where it needs the support of opposition parties to pass laws.

In the Upper House, finance minister Arun Jaitley defended the government's decision to bring in ordinances and invoked the Jawaharlal Nehru government saying it had introduced 77 ordinances.

"Allegations that ordinances are bypassing Parliament is not a valid argument," Jaitley said.

"The Opposition can't pre-empt discussion on the land bill in Lok Sabha," he said while listing ordinances passed by the previous UPA government.

Jaitley added that the government is within its rights to take the ordinance route.

"You expect Parliament to rubber stamp your ordinances, you don't send anything to standing committee," Congress leader Anand Sharma hit back at Jaitley.

The Congress has already given a notice for suspension of question hour in the Upper House to discuss the ordinance and its leader Kamal Nath told ANI that his party will oppose the bill strongly.

In Lok Sabha, Speaker Sumitra Mahajan rejected Congress MP Jyotiraditya Scindia's adjournment motion over land acquisition bill.

The Opposition has remained firm that the ordinance, along with five more, would not be allowed to go through Parliament. These ordinances would expire on March 20, if not passed during this budget session.

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, 2015 will replace the ordinance promulgated by the government in December last year, which had brought changes in the earlier bill passed in 2013 by the UPA government.

The government had promulgated the ordinance making significant changes in the land act including removal of consent clause for acquiring land for five areas -- industrial corridors, PPP projects, rural infrastructure, affordable housing and defence.

The prime objection to the land acquisition ordinance has been that it removed the need for written consent from 70% of landowners for joint public-private projects.

The ruling BJP also has its hands full after rights activist Anna Hazare on Monday started a protest against the "anti-farmer" land law.

He got support from old associates Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, the chief minister of Delhi and his deputy whose Aam Aadmi Party had routed the BJP in the national capital's assembly polls. They will join Hazare in his protest on Tuesday.

"This is land grab by the government ... This is what the British used to do. To cater to industrialists, how can you betray farmers?" Hazare said before his dharna at Jantar Mantar.

To make matters worse, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) has also raised objection to the ordinance, seeing in it a reason for the BJP’s drubbing in Delhi.

Ways around

Given the heat generated by the land law before the NDA government's presents its first full-year budget on February 28, fear mounted within the BJP of a possible Parliament washout in the face of the Opposition's belligerent stand.

Barring Prime Minister Modi, top BJP leaders closeted on Monday evening to see if the bill to be place before Lok Sabha could be further refined to pacify the protesters.

There were hints that the government might consider the demands when Parliament debates the bill.

"We discussed all issues, including land acquisition. We discussed issues farmers have raised. Twenty-seven farmer organisations have met home minister Rajnath Singh," Union minister Ananth Kumar said.

"We will consider what is on farmers' minds. The Prime Minister has said at an all-party meet we will welcome suggestions."

The government tried its hand to bring the Opposition on board as PM Modi said dialogue and discussion were an essential part of democracy and hoped for a positive outcome of the budget session.

He walked up to the opposition benches with folded hands after entering Lok Sabha on Monday morning — a first by the Prime Minister in almost nine months since taking charge.

Meanwhile, setting in motion the process of replacing ordinances relating coal mines, e-rickshaws and FDI in insurance with fresh bills, the government has listed for the withdrawal of old bills in Rajya Sabha.

Union ministers Arun Jaitley, Nitin Gadkari and Piyush Goyal will move for withdrawal of these bills.

The government is racing against time to convert the six ordinances into bills in the first part of the Budget session, which comes to an end on March 20.

The government will also introduce a bill in Lok Sabha to amend the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which will replace the ordinance promulgated on the issue recently.

 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 6,2020

Mumbai, Feb 6: The Reserve Bank of India, for the second straight time, on Thursday kept its key policy rate unchanged at 5.15 per cent, maintaining its accommodative policy stance as long as it was necessary to revive growth.

The central bank retained GDP growth at 5 per cent for 2019-20 and pegged it at 6 per cent for the next fiscal.

"Economic activity remains subdued and the few indicators that have moved up recently are yet to gain traction in a more broad-based manner. Given the evolving growth-inflation dynamics, the MPC felt it appropriate to maintain status quo,” the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) said.

The six-member committee voted unanimously to hold rates, but also said that there is “policy space available for further action”.

Between February and October 2019, the RBI had reduced repo rate by 135 basis points.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 11,2020

New Delhi, Feb 11: AAP chief and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has won from New Delhi assembly seat. He polled 46,758 votes, which is 61.1 per cent of total votes polled in the high profile constituency.

Kejriwal defeated Sunil Kumar Yadav of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who polled 25,061 votes, which is 32.75 per cent of total votes polled. Congress candidate Romesh Sabhawarl could get only 3,220 votes.

So far, the AAP has won 55 seats and is leading on seven seats. The BJP has won seven seats and is leading on two. The Congress is nowhere in the reckoning.

As per the details on the website of Election Commission of India at 8.27 pm on Tuesday, the AAP has secured 53.60 per cent votes, BJP 38.49 per cent, BSP 0.71 per cent, CPI 0.02 per cent, CPI-M 0.01 per cent, Congress 4.27 per cent, JDU 0.90 per cent, LJP 0.35 per cent, NCP 0.02 per cent, and NOTA 0.46 per cent.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.