A day after there were indications of an official turnaround on the contentious provisions of the Land Acquisition Bill — virtually reverting to the 2013 Act passed by the UPA — it emerged that the government had gone against the advice of its own bureaucrats in pushing through ordinance after ordinance on this piece of legislation.
When the Rural Development Ministry was first asked to prepare the Land Acquisition Ordinance last December, officials there had informed the Prime Minister’s Office that everything the government was seeking to accomplish through it was possible just as well under the provisions of the 2013 Act itself.
The detailed point-by-point explanation on why the ordinance was not necessary to meet the government’s objective of providing a boost to investments and infrastructure in both rural and urban India was, however, overruled.
“The instructions were to go ahead and prepare the ordinance … the government wanted to make a dhamaka [big show],” a source close to the Prime Minister’s Office told The Hindu .
Clearly, had the Modi government gone by the advice of its officials, the loss of its political capital and Parliament’s time could have been avoided.
Meanwhile, the Congress — still savouring Monday’s victory in the Joint Parliamentary Committee which is examining the Bill — mobilised other Opposition members within to seek a postponement of Tuesday’s scheduled meeting. The reason cited by the Congress was the inability of its member Rajiv Satav — one of the 25 suspended MPs — to vote on the three amendments listed for Tuesday in the committee including the retrospective clause. His vote is key to reversing the remaining three amendments, including the retrospective clause.
2013 lawEven the 2013 law provides for the government to acquire land either for its own use or for subsequent transfer for public purpose to any entity including a company, a body corporate, an institution or any other organisation. Further, the law provides for the transfer of land acquired by the government through lease, licence or any other mode including sale. The provision under which this can be done is Section 3 z (b) of the Act. Public purpose is defined under Section 2 of the Act and includes a variety of infrastructure projects.
Opposition parties, meanwhile, wondered why the government wasted so much time, energy and political capital on such an anti-farmer ordinance. “For the past eight months, why did you go through this charade? Why did you waste Parliament’s time and that of members, creating so much uncertainty,” asked Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Sitaram Yechury.
Since December, when the first ordinance was promulgated, it has been re-promulgated twice and passed by the Lok Sabha as many times following discussions running into several hours on both occasions. Add to this, the number of hours spent inside and outside Parliament in animated debate that made the government appear pro-rich and anti-farmer.
Even as the Opposition parties sought to claim victory for the “climbdown,” Union Rural Development Minister Birender Singh said it was not a capitulation as the government had always been open to changes on which there was consensus. “The joint committee of Parliament is after all considered a mini-Parliament,” he said. There was no mention of the reluctance on the part of the government to refer the Bill to a parliamentary committee.
