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: 73
 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: 74
 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]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/mk-refers-to-singur-law-legal-advice-15890.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MK refers to Singur law ‘legal advice’ | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

MK refers to Singur law ‘legal advice’
-The Telegraph

Governor M.K. Narayanan today said he was given “legal advice” that the Singur bill did not require presidential assent — an observation the government has seized upon in its search for a scapegoat.

Absence of presidential assent was one of the key reasons cited by a Calcutta High Court division bench last week to strike down the Singur law. The state government today spoke of looking at “other alternatives” alongside the legal battle.

“I thought we did not require the President’s approval. That was the legal advice also. If the high court felt otherwise, it’s fine. That’s ok. What can we do?” the governor said in response to a question on the sidelines of a programme at Heritage College.

The governor did not blame anyone but merely made an observation in a matter-of-fact tone.

In the evening, Trinamul MP and lawyer Kalyan Banerjee, who had appeared for the state government in the case, said in response to a question: “When the bill was sent to the governor for his clearance, he had called the advocate-general and sought his advice. It is a fact that the advocate-general had advised him that for the Singur Act, presidential assent was not mandatory.”

“We still believe that President’s assent was not mandatory for the same,” Banerjee added.

Advocate-general Anindya Mitra, a renowned lawyer who was cajoled to take up the post after the new government came to power last year, could not be contacted as he has been admitted to a nursing home.

A senior cabinet minister, who did not wish to be named, said: “On June 11 last year, industry minister Partha Chatterjee and law minister Moloy Ghatak had gone to the governor for his signature on the bill. As the governor was not convinced that the bill could be passed without the President’s assent, Mitra was called…. The governor signed the bill only after Mitra advised that presidential assent was not needed.”

The bill was passed in the Assembly on June 14 amid assertions by Left legislators that it was illegal.

But a senior state government official said any attempt to hold the eminent lawyer responsible for the bill’s deficiencies was “unfair”.

“The chief minister was in a tearing hurry to get the bill passed. Ministers like Chatterjee and Ghatak and party MP Banerjee were also of the opinion that it could be passed without the President’s assent. It is unfair to hold Mitra responsible as it is clear that he was under tremendous pressure,” said the officer.

Although the government has vowed to fight the high court order in the Supreme Court, some ministers admitted in private that they made a mistake by trying to push through the bill without following due process.

“Had we sent the bill for presidential assent, we would have had to wait at least for a year as the Union law department would have checked the provisions…. The chief minister was not prepared to wait that long,” said a minister.

The division bench’s judgment suggests that the “dominant purpose” of the law — return of land to unwilling owners — played the most decisive role in the court.

A key question was whether the state bill dealt with a subject on the concurrent list and, if so, went against the central Land Acquisition Act. If it did, presidential assent was needed.

The yardstick here was whether the Singur bill facilitated acquisition (in which case it will fall in the concurrent list over which the Centre has a say) or “resumption of possession of leasehold land by the owner” as the state contended. The court ruled that the bill was aimed at acquisition, which meant the central act and the state law fell in the same field (known as Entry 42 of List III).

That alone would not have sealed the fate of the law. The clincher was whether the state law went against the central one. It did, the court ruled, because “the dominant purpose” was to return land to unwilling owners.

“Returning land and conferring title is absolutely direct confrontation with the act prevailing in the said field i.e. L.A. (land acquisition) Act, 1894,” the division bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri said in the judgment.

It was this “direct confrontation” that made presidential assent mandatory. It remains to be seen if such an interpretation will hold in the Supreme Court, too.

Partha’s search

Amid the preparations to challenge the verdict in the apex court, Chatterjee held a meeting with Ghatak and officials from the land and land reforms and law departments in the Assembly complex to consider alternative options.

“Alongside the legal battle, we are looking at other alternatives before us. The government is committed to return land to the unwilling farmers of Singur,” Chatterjee said.

According to sources, the alternatives that have been suggested are an out-of-court settlement with Tata Motors or framing a new law to facilitate the process of returning land to the unwilling farmers of Singur.

Chatterjee, however, refused to elaborate on the alternatives being discussed. There was no word from the minister on whether the government was willing to shell out Rs 1,500 crore that Tata Motors had sought to part with the land.

“It has to be verified whether a new law would be legally tenable in the current scenario. Even for an out-of-court settlement, the government has to open communication channels. There has been no clear indication from the chief minister yet on the next step,” a senior Trinamul leader said.

Agriculture minister Rabindranath Bhattacharya revived an old land-share formula (“keep 600 acres, return 400 acres”) that the Tatas had once rejected.

With the governor mentioning “legal advice”, the CPM-led Opposition launched an attack on the government.

Party state secretariat member Shyamal Chakraborty said the governor was “misguided'” by the government on the Singur land return bill.

On the sidelines of a CPM gathering at Esplanade, Chakraborty said: “After hearing what the governor today said about the Singur bill, it is clear that he was misguided by the state government. The government did it deliberately as it wanted to hurry up the Singur issue in order to make political gains.”

Leader of the Opposition Surjya Kanta Mishra also blamed the government for its failure in following the right process to get the bill passed.

“From the governor’s remarks, it appears that he is suffering from mental pain and agony, probably because he was not advised properly by the government,” Mishra said outside the Assembly, although Narayanan did not make any statement on his state of mind.