We now come to the practical problems
perceived in the LARR act by the successor government (termed the NDA) and the
amendments proposed. In a revealing aside, Ramesh & Khan (2015, p.70)
confess that the LARR (2013) law was drafted “with the intention to discourage
land acquisition”, by adding all these onerous obligations, and thereby moving
to a situation where “land acquisition would become a route of last resort”
(ibid.). This reminds us of the diversion of forest under the Forest
Conservation Act 1980, where left to themselves, the forest authorities would
usually have no intention of making it an easy process (one industrialist was
reported to have said in frustration that even the environmental clearance
could be got, but forest clearance was almost impossible). It also brings up
the interesting question of what other options are available in practical terms
if a project requires large chunks of land.
There were analogous discontents with the
LARR 2013, prompting the new NDA government to propose some amendments in December
2014, and imposed these through the ordnance route as the opposition parties
refused to let it be passed in the Rajya Sabha, which stirred a huge hornets’
nest that effectively paralysed Parliament through the monsoon session of 2015.
By August, the impasse was given a respite by the government deciding to
backtrack on the amendments, and the whole bill being deferred to the winter
session of 2015.
Ramesh & Khan (2015) criticize the NDA
government’s amendment ordnance in the following terms (op. cit., p. 124). The
press releases prior to the ordnance made it appear that there were only two
significant proposals in it. One was the extension of the compensation and R&R
(Rehabilitation
and Resettlement) requirements to the exempted acts listed in Schedule
IV, which Ramesh & Khan term as making a virtue out of a necessity, as the
original LARR act had itself made this mandatory after the lapse of one year. The
other was the exemption given by new Section 10A to certain categories of
projects from the more onerous requirements of consent and social impact
assessment. Ramesh & Khan criticize this exemption as being worded in a
vague manner, for instance, “infrastructure projects (including PPP projects)”,
which was not defined precisely anywhere), and which would in effect nullify
all the progressive measures and safeguards to affected persons intended in the
2013 act. They make a plea that a fair trial should be given to the existing
LARR 2013 act, instead of trying to dilute its effect by such amendments.
Seeing the mood of the people and the stiff
resistance to the amendments, the NDA government finally seems to have decided
to backtrack and defer consideration of the amendments to the winter session
2015. Further, on closer examination, it seems to have been realised that at
least one of the enhanced requirements – that of consent by a large majority –
has not been made mandatory for purely government undertakings. Defence,
national security and natural calamities have anyway been, in effect, exempted
under the applicability of the ‘urgency’ clause. Perhaps the government has
decided to go along with the LARR 2013 for the present, as any dilution of the
requirements in respect of other categories (such as PPP projects and private
sector, however high they may come on the national priorities) may give the NDA
an undesirable anti-poor image, to the advantage of the opposition parties.
References
Ramesh, Jairam and Muhammad Ali Khan. 2015.
Legislating for Justice. The Making of
the 2013 Land Acquisition Law. Oxford
University Press, New Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment