Draft Lakshadweep Regulations : Plea In Kerala High Court Seeks Extension Of Deadline For Objections

The petition has been filed by the Rawther Federation through its Lakshadweep Representative Shaik Mujeebu Rahman through Advocates Sriram Parakkat, KR Sripathi and Anupama Subramanian.

In the petition, Rahman avers that the Administration of the Union Territory did not afford sufficient opportunity to the citizens of Lakshadweep including himself to participate in the pre- legislative scrutiny of regulations that were likely to directly impact their lives.

Arguing that the means of publication resorted to notify the regulations were arbitrary and namesake, the petitioner draws on the principle that 'Justice Must Be Seen To Be Done' to aver that the process did not afford the inhabitants of the island opportunity to ventilate grievances.

In particular, Rahman refers the Circulars calling for public comments on the Draft Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulations, 2021, the Draft Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation 2021, the Lakshadweep Town and Country Planning Regulation, 2021 and the Draft Lakshadweep Panchayath Regulations, 2021 in the month of March. The plea points out that the Draft Panchayath Regulations are not even uploaded on the website.

With reference to Lakshadweep's status as a Union Territory without a law-making body comprising of elected representatives, pre-legislative scrutiny becomes all the more important, it is emphasized.

"Citizens too must play their part, by debating and deliberating upon upcoming Bills in a process of dialogic engagement with each other and with lawmakers", Rahman's petition states.

"Was the notice and the draft laws diligently published through any other means or mode to ensure that the same reaches the affected masses?"

The plea takes the stance that despite the circulars, the publication for pre-legislative scrutiny may have suffered infirmities. Rahman's petition poses the question of whether a publication of the website would create awareness of the changes among the inhabitants of the island.

In this respect, Rahman's petition poses these questions -

1. Have there been maladies in the publication of the said public notice?

2. Was the public notice actually published on the dated mentioned on them?

3. Was the notice and the draft laws suppressed from the public till the last date for expression of comments, opinion and suggestions was over?

4. Was the draft regulations and notice actually made available to the public?

5. Was the publication only carried out as a namesake formalities to show compliance with the directions of the Ministry of Law & Justice?

6. Is the common man expected to be aware of the proposed new regulations upon mere publication of a circular in the official website?

To bolster the case, the petitioner refers to Guidelines on Pre-Legislative Scrutiny issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice in 2013 and published in January 2014. The Guidelines prescribed these modes of publicising legislative instruments before the same was submitted to Cabinet for approval -

• Proactive publication on the internet as well as other means
• Publication in public domain the draft legislation or at least information about why the legislation is implemented, its essential element, broad financial implications, and an estimated assessment of the impact of such legislation on environment, fundamental rights, lives and livelihoods of the concerned/affected people, etc.
• Keeping these details in the public domain for a minimum of 30 days for being proactively shared with the public
• Documented and disclosing the groups that would be most affected by the legislative instrument, through print or electronic media or in such other manner, as may be considered necessary to give wider publicity to reach the affected people.
• Incorporating provision regarding the prior publication of rules should be made in all new principal legislations.
• Publishing material explaining the legislation in simple language
• Publishing the summary of feedback/comments received from the public/other stakeholders should also be placed on the website of the Department/Ministry concerned.
• In addition to placing the proposal in public domain, the concerned department/ministry could also hold consultations with all stakeholders.

While agreeing that the publication for pre-legislative scrutiny was followed, the petitioner points to the insistence in the Guidelines upon a proactive publication. It is also argued that there have been doubts raised as to the genuineness of the pre-legislative scrutiny process.

"The respondent has resorted to the publication of…notices in a namesake manner without giving it the much needed attention and publicity whereby the respondents have tried to impose upon the people of Lakshadweep, certain regulations which is highly detrimental to their interests. Due importance is given to the doctrine of legitimate expectation wherein the citizens of the territory expect and anticipate, best interest principles to be adopted and followed by their governing body."

Therefore, the petitioner seeks these reliefs –

• Records that the Regulations were made available to the public other than through the official website, affording sufficient opportunity to the citizens to express their opinion.
• Direction to the Lakshadweep Administration to grant sufficient time to the petitioner and other citizens of Lakshadweep to express their opinion, comments and suggestions with respect to the draft laws proposed to be promulgated
• An extension of the deadline granted by another 30 days so as to afford opportunity to the petitioner and other citizens of Lakshadweep to express their opinion, comments and suggestions
• Direction to the respondent to give sufficient publicity to the draft laws so as to allow sufficient opportunity to voice their opinion.
• Direction to the Administration to consider the opinion, comments and suggestions put forth by the petitioner and other citizens of Lakshadweep so that the said laws are not imposed upon the citizens of Lakshadweep compromising their fundamental rights
• Direction to the Administration to publish the draft of the Lakshadweep Panchayat Regulation 2021, which was taken away from the official website of the Lakshadweep Government and the records of the same.

CASE: Rawther Federation v UTL and Ors.

COUNSEL: Advocates Sriram Parakkat, Anupama Subramanian and KR Sripathi.