[ad_1]
Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday junked a plea filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to direct centre and state governments to publish draft legislations on government websites and in the public domain at least 60 days before introducing them in Parliament and state assemblies.
Noting that although there was certain legislation which contemplated participation of the public like various town planning legislation, a bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi remarked that it would not be proper for the court to direct the governments to do so.
“It’s entirely left to concerned authorities and bodies to take stalk of the situation and it’s completely left to the authorities,” the bench said in its order.
Finding force in Upadhyaya’s prayer of directing the state and centre to publish draft legislation on the government website in all regional languages, the bench in their order said, “As regards the second prayer, we do see some force in submissions that people at large must have every facility to be aware of legislations which would govern their conduct and day to day life and such legislations be kept in the public domain. At this stage, we just express hope that this is looked into.”
Upadhyay argued in the plea that the injury caused to the public is large as the existing law-making process is not only ‘undemocratic’ but also ‘unconstitutional’.
Plea further states that although the Government of India had conceived a Pre Legislative Consultation Policy in 2014 wherein the Department and Ministry had to publish in public domain draft legislation but this has not been followed by the Executive while framing laws. It has further been argued in the plea that public debate on the law for two months would force the Executive to analyse every aspect.
“When the law is debated in the parliament, MLAs/MPs will give better suggestions as well. After all this the new draft would encompass all the suggestions received from all sects of the society, thus the draft would be error-free and democratically viable,” the plea had also argued.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday junked a plea filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to direct centre and state governments to publish draft legislations on government websites and in the public domain at least 60 days before introducing them in Parliament and state assemblies.
Noting that although there was certain legislation which contemplated participation of the public like various town planning legislation, a bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi remarked that it would not be proper for the court to direct the governments to do so.
“It’s entirely left to concerned authorities and bodies to take stalk of the situation and it’s completely left to the authorities,” the bench said in its order.
Finding force in Upadhyaya’s prayer of directing the state and centre to publish draft legislation on the government website in all regional languages, the bench in their order said, “As regards the second prayer, we do see some force in submissions that people at large must have every facility to be aware of legislations which would govern their conduct and day to day life and such legislations be kept in the public domain. At this stage, we just express hope that this is looked into.”
Upadhyay argued in the plea that the injury caused to the public is large as the existing law-making process is not only ‘undemocratic’ but also ‘unconstitutional’.
Plea further states that although the Government of India had conceived a Pre Legislative Consultation Policy in 2014 wherein the Department and Ministry had to publish in public domain draft legislation but this has not been followed by the Executive while framing laws. It has further been argued in the plea that public debate on the law for two months would force the Executive to analyse every aspect.
“When the law is debated in the parliament, MLAs/MPs will give better suggestions as well. After all this the new draft would encompass all the suggestions received from all sects of the society, thus the draft would be error-free and democratically viable,” the plea had also argued.
[ad_2]
Source link