Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Laws for citizens, and by them too -Ruchi Gupta and Nikhil Dey

Laws for citizens, and by them too -Ruchi Gupta and Nikhil Dey

Share this article Share this article
published Published on May 20, 2013   modified Modified on May 20, 2013
-The Indian Express


Institutionalising a mandatory process of consultation and dialogue would democratise not just law-making, but the state itself

The formal institutions of India's parliamentary democracy have provided little space for citizens' participation in the making of laws. This has not, however, prevented citizens and citizens' groups from making significant attempts to watch, critique and contribute to the process. In fact, in recent years, it is clear that the lack of space has brought citizens out onto the streets in multiple campaigns, not just in protest, but also suggesting change and demanding solutions. Often, this has culminated in the demand for a particular legislation, where different aspects of the legislation have been widely and energetically debated.

The debate over the Lokpal bill or the submissions to the Justice J.S. Verma committee, are recent examples of the citizens' effort - even struggle - to be part of the legislative process. During the campaign for the Lokpal bill, there was some amount of debate about who can make a law, and what the role of the citizen should be. However, the obvious need to strengthen the parliamentary process through the participation of citizens got lost in this sharply adversarial debate.

Laws are instruments to amass or distribute power. There can be little argument that debates about legislation in the public domain are not only inherently more democratic but have also led to more informed, equitable and robust legislative measures. The Right to Information law, for instance, benefited from over a decade of people's dialogues and contributions in different parts of the country. The RTI campaign "model law" was used as an advocacy benchmark which served as a basis for the law that was eventually passed by Parliament in 2005. Consequently, citizens have used the law in a million creative ways, while resolutely resisting any amendments that might dilute it.

Popular participation of the kind we see in India is a strong validation of people's democratic aspirations. There is actually an inherent value in what we often only perceive as an "untidy" process of democratic decision-making. We need to welcome, assimilate and institutionalise such citizens' engagement. In fact, citizen inputs will not undermine, but strengthen what comes out of the executive and legislature. A mandatory consultative process for any change in law, major policy or subordinate legislation is long overdue.

The draft recommendations of the National Advisory Council (NAC) to pass an executive order mandating consultations with citizens on all new legislation and rules (and amendments thereof), could be used as an opportunity to begin this process. As per the draft recommendations, all Central ministries would have to draft laws and rules through a transparent and participatory pre-legislative process (PLP), incorporating at least the following three components.

First, proactive disclosure in two stages. A statement of the objectives and principles of the proposed legislation to include at least the need for such a legislation; main features of the proposed legislation; financial implications of the proposed legislation; and an impact assessment of the legislation on the "environment, fundamental rights, and the lives and livelihood of the concerned/ affected people" - to be kept in the public domain for at least 45 days. Next, the draft legislation on the basis of the above must also be put in the public domain for at least 90 days, including decentralised dissemination through pamphlets/ posters where the legislation affects a specific group of people. Public comments on both documents will be solicited through a set of questions on the main points of the law, and will also be hosted in the public domain.

Second, consultations. The ministry will be charged to hold public consultations with a particular focus on those who are likely to be impacted/ affected by the proposed legislation.

Third, incorporation of feedback. Public comments must be summarised along with responses of the concerned department/ ministry and submitted to the cabinet along with the draft legislation.

This is itself not to be a law. However, even a limited mandatory pre-legislative consultative process has immense potential. It is evident that a process of mandatory disclosure and consultation would have precluded passing legislation by stealth, such as the SEZ act. In any case, the inevitable reaction that comes from affected people is eventually much worse in terms of healthy decision-making. This protocol also provides an opportunity to question the intent of proposed legislation, as in the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, where many citizen groups argue that the mandate of a biotechnology authority should be bio-safety for citizens, as opposed to a predetermination to promote and regulate biotechnology. Equally, the PLP provides citizens the space to question whether the provisions of the draft bill are in consonance with the stated purpose, for instance, in the now-discarded prevention of torture bill, which appeared less to prevent torture than provide impunity for the torturers.

If accepted by the government, these recommendations would be an important first step. Nevertheless, the recommendations fall short of what is required. Government policies have been left out of the scope of this process. Grand corruption and loss of revenue for government is often an outcome of flawed policies. This is apparent in the current scams on 2G spectrum and coal block allocation. This exclusion would also allow the government to use the executive route to implement something that actually needs to go through the legislative process. A case in point is the UIDAI, an authority set up through an executive order. This UID number is now being made a mandatory interface between the government and the citizen. The government has avoided parliamentary scrutiny and monitoring by proceeding with it as a "policy decision", even after the parliamentary standing committee raised fundamental issues about the draft bill.

There is an opportunity to try and have some of these shortcomings removed by participating in the process. The NAC has placed its draft recommendations on its website for 15 days, and invited public comment, which it will consider before finalising the draft to send to government for consideration and necessary action. The recommendations should be read, critiqued and strengthened. The NAC is itself a kind of limited (and controversial) pre-legislative consultative body. The basic idea should, nevertheless, be supported even by critics of the NAC, for if these recommendations were to be implemented, it would make the consultative process mandatory, and fundamentally inclusive. It is up to us to participate and set a progressive precedent for democracy. Institutionalising a mandatory process of consultation and dialogue would democratise not just
law-making but the state itself.

The writers are information rights activists associated with the MKSS and the NCPRI

The Indian Express, 20 May, 2013, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/laws-for-citizens-and-by-them-too/1117995/


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

"Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...

"Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

"Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

Objectives | About Us | Workshops | Disclaimer
share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close