Parliament safeguards its interests

Two recent enactments show how politicians panic when they perceive a threat to their electoral base

Vijay Sanghvi

When their interests are at stake and coincide on issues, politicians and parties tend to paper over their ideological differences and pass legislation in a hurry quoting so-called “national interest”.

This camaraderie was in evidence during the closing days of the just-concluded Budget session of Parliament, when the members from the Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party goaded the government to rush through a legislation to undo what the Supreme Court had ordered the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) to do-- demolish all illegal and unauthorised structures and seal shops and offices that were operational from residential areas in various zones in the Indian capital.  

The government first made a futile attempt seeking more time from the Supreme Court for shop-owners to shift their trade from residential areas in an orderly and smooth manner, but the Supreme Court refused to relent and also provide relief. Stung by this move, the government was forced to opt for a legislation which provides a moratorium for one year for the shop-owners from sealing and demolitions of their property.  The legislation has become operational after the Supreme Court announced measures to clean the capital of businesses working out from residential areas. It would be interesting to see how the MPs would react if and when the Supreme Court declares the legislation invalid for violating the existing building laws and Master Plan.

Instead, the politicians ought to have examined why such a messy situation came about when Delhi has had a Master Plan since 1961, which lays down a roadmap for building a city of the future. In 1991, a new Master Plan was approved but its implementation has been haphazard and uneven. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has monopoly control over the ownership and land usage. During the last three decades, DDA allotted only 16 per cent of land for commercial use while 84 per cent remained un-allotted. These figures have been provided by Dr PS Rana, Chairman and Managing Director of Housing and Urban Development, who is also a member of the Tejinder Khanna Committee appointed by the Union government to find the best solution to the phenomenon of illegal and unauthorised constructions. DDA did not adequately use the land at its disposal even when the capital’s population had zoomed in 2006 to 22 million from 3.3 million in 1965.

The manner in which DDA was squatting on precious land without earmarking it for commercial usage, gave an opportunity for parliamentarians to review the functioning of the authority and try understand why it failed to implement the Master Plan. The Urban Development Ministry ought to have opted for a lasting solution instead of confronting the judiciary through a legislation that at best provides reprieve for mere 12 months.

The other hurriedly-passed legislation was to save 45 Members of Parliament from disqualification for holding offices of profit. The Law Minister Hans Raj Bhardwaj sought the unanimous vote on the legislation with a plea that he had come before the House with legislation to save several MPs from different parties from getting disqualified under Article 102 of the Constitution. He also indicated that he was not averse to the amendment of the said Article in a suitable manner so that a threat to their positions would not arise again. A Biju Janata Dal member from Orissa did attempt to draw the attention of the House that even members who would benefit from the legislation were participating in the debate and voting, though the rules specifically debarred their participation and voting. However, his objection was brushed aside by the Deputy Speaker who gave a go ahead. It would again be interesting to see if someone will file a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court seeking to annul the enactment that was breezed through.