I/III http://www.livelaw.in/pil-by-4-ngos-challenges-re-promulgation-of-land-ordinance/
PIL by 4 NGOs challenges re-promulgation of land ordinance On April 9, 2015 by Apoorva Mandhani Four NGOs: Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kisan Union, Grameen Sewa Samiti and Chogama Vikas Avam have reportedly filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court, challenging the Constitutional validity of the Land acquisition ordinance. The PIL is settled by senior advocate and former Additional Solicitor-General Indira Jaising. The NGOs have alleged that the repromulgation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 on April 3, 2015 has led to the executive encroaching on the impermissible domain of enacting legislation. It alleges that the repromulgation of the ordinance is colorable exercise of power by the Executive. The Court was informed that the ordinance was first promulgated in December last year. As a Parliament Session followed the promulgation, the Government should ideally have introduced a Bill to replace the ordinance. The Government however, did not follow this procedure and instead repromulgated the ordinance after the Session. This, according to the PIL, amounted to a violation of constitutional procedures for ordinance promulgation and hence rendered the entire exercise unconstitutional. The PIL has called it a "textbook example of blatant abuse" of the President's power to promulgate ordinances. It hence stated, "Lack of political will or consensus or the fear of the executive of getting defeated on the floor of the House, is not a ground for exercise of power under Article 123 (power of the President to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament)." It further alleges that a fraud has been played on the Constitution of India, stating that ordinance cannot function as a substitute for legislative law making. This is especially when the bill has been passed by the Lok Sabha and not by the Rajya Sabha, it said. "This ordinance does not even indicate what is the extraordinary situation necessitating it... the Supreme Court has categorically held that 'Ordinance Raj' is impermissible and in fact a fraud on the Constitution," the petition asserted. The new ordinance received the President's nod on April 3, 2015. The earlier ordinance was supposed to lapse on April 5. The new ordinance, which is the 11th promulgated by the Narendra Modi government, incorporates the nine amendments adopted by the Lok Sabha. Because of a lack of political consensus, the Bill was not brought for passage in the Upper House. II/III. http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/pil-in-supreme-court-for-quashing-ordinance-113070600374_1.html PIL in Supreme Court for quashing ordinance The petition, filed by advocate M L Sharma, said the Article 123 of the Constitution that deals with the power of the President to promulgate ordinances during the recess of Parliament has been misuse Press Trust of India | New Delhi July 6, 2013 Last Updated at 21:54 IST A PIL was filed on Saturday in the Supreme Court seeking quashing of controversial Food Security ordinance on the ground that the constitutional provision has been misused for pre-election propaganda and political gains. President Pranab Mukherjee on Friday signed the ordinance on Food Security to give THE nation's two-third population the right to get five kilogrammes of foodgrains every month at highly subsidised rates of Rs 1-3 a kg. The petition, filed by advocate M L Sharma, said the Article 123 of the Constitution that deals with the power of the President to promulgate ordinances during the recess of Parliament has been misused as there was no "emergency" situation. Seeking quashing of the ordinance, it said, "there was no emergency circumstances exist to issue impugn ordinance hence it does not comply with the terms of Art. 123. Therefore, the impugned notification is unconstitutional and is liable to be declared unconstitutional and void." The plea also raised several questions including as to whether the Government can invoke Article 123 without any emergency situation. "Whether Article 123 can be allowed to be misused by the sitting political parties in government for their pre-election propaganda for political purposes?, it said. It also said that million of tons of foodgrains are rotting in open as the country lacks storage facility even as people are dying of hunger. "Instead of complying with the Supreme Court direction to release food grain for the protection of life of citizens of India, the Respondent (Centre) has released a food bill via ordinance route for securing political mileage for their election mandate," the PIL, which has made Principal Secretary of the PMO and the agriculture minister as parties, said. The petition has also sought a direction to the Centre for release of food grain in the market at "no price or similar price declared in the food bill immediately in open market. III. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pil-in-sc-challenges-land-acquisition-ordinance/articleshow/46860195.cms PIL in SC challenges land acquisition ordinance Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN | Apr 9, 2015, 11.27 AM IST NEW DELHI: Four NGOs working for farmers on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of government's action to repromulgate the land acquisition ordinance. The PIL was filed by Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kisan Union, Grameen Sewa Samiti and another NGO alleging that repromulgation of the ordinance amounted to executive entering the impermissible domain of enacting legislation. The NGOs told the court that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Ordinance was first promulgated in December last year. As a Parliament Session followed, the NDA government should have introduced a bill on the line of the ordinance to amend the land acquisition Act, 2013. Instead of following the constitutionally dictated procedure, the government decided not to introduce amendment to Land acquisition Act in Parliament when it was in session and immediately after the session repromulgated the ordinance, the PIL said. This amounted to government violating the constitutional procedures for ordinance promulgation rendering the executive decision unconstitutional. III. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
