Making Changes in law. Democracy or Mobocracy.

Making Changes in law. Democracy or Mobocracy.

Parliament's prime duty is to make legislation for the country. For that it needs to debate and see all pros and cons of new proposed law  including problem of implementation.

In this sense/ aspect our legislating capacity seems not up to the mark. It is generally carried away by emotions and sentiments of the day and of public. Our main constitution itself has been amended more than 125 times in short span of 65 years. But we need not go back this much. Illustrating recent examples are sufficient.

Take the example of  clause/ section 66A of IT Act that is  struck down by SC. By this section an anomaly was created where in what was not criminal in print and electronic media was made criminal on social media. Now drafter of the legislation themselves saying section was poorly drafted. Was all this was not obvious while making the law. 

Take example of non legislative decisions also.In this aspect see the fate of  ban on Nirbhya documentary. No sane voice was heard during the debate except that of people like Javed Akhatar etc. Ultimately ban turned out to be non-enforceable.Take another example of hue and cry over release of Masart Alam. We can understand it from ignorant public but same scene in parliament ?. All voices, including PM, without taking in to account legal aspect and what was happening before Mufti became CM ?. Was it not the duty of HM to tell the nation what is correct position.   

Now come to mother of all controversy, Land Bill. ( I think previous to this Hindu Civil Code  Bill must have raised such debate in Nehru's time).

Before we come to merit of 2013 Bill or present ordinance etc. Need to amend a Bill ( which was not opposed by present ruling party) within a year of its passing is itself shocking. Does it mean while passing the bill all aspect were not seen or discussed. We could understand if the present amendments, were same as BJP  had proposed earlier but could not get it passed because of lack of majority or voted against the bill. But the fact BJP had supported the Bill.

Now coming to the merit of amendments. We fully agree that rural people should move away from agriculture. Presently, there is disguised-employment ( work without productivity) in agriculture or rural economy. We also full agree that considering the small land holding and large number of farmers involved consent clause seems to be impracticable. Same can be said about social impact assessment, which is generally done on fictitious/ unreliable project report. It is game to include more and more people as project affected persons.

But the solution is more dangerous than problem. This way farmers are forced to sacrifice whatever little assets they are presently having. Ruling class says  amendments are beneficial  for farmers. Now if some thing is better for farmer why farmer will not give consent for it ?.

Basically, landowner, where land is considered as a factor of production, should be made as shareholder in any project on land. Be it in  road or railway or any manufacturing activity. We can leave purely public goods like science laboratory or defense establishment where no revenue will be generated from such share holding. But wherever revenue is likely to be generated, be  it by govt or private, some way of ownership in project must be insured for farmers. 

Further, even commercial activity can be divided in two parts. One is like dam which has to built on existing river or road/ rail which has to be built between existing cities and can not be located elsewhere. Another is factory etc. which can be located any where ( of course cost and market are consideration but it is not essential, it only  affects profitability). Law for the first type should be different from second one.

Any commercial activity will surely affect one group positively and another group negatively. You can not ask to sacrifice the  loser for  another group which is likely to benefit. It is cross subsidy.Why not encourage experiments like Magarpatta of Pune  where in farmers themselves developed city. 

Intention here is not to discuss pro and cons of a particular bill or clause.  But parliament should pass the law with full discussion. We should give a thought, why a British law  made in 1894 continued for 119 years and our bill needs amendment  in a year. 

We should not turn democracy to mobocracy.