Magazine
Tag:GS-2|| Polity || Other Constitutional Dimensions || Special Provisions for Some states
Why in News?
- Recently, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice was forced to issue a corrigendum to the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganisation Act.
J&K Reorganisation Act
- The Act gave the de facto revocation of Article 370 legal force.
- A special relationship between the Centre and the former state had been established.
- The Act was introduced to divide Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
- Both will come into being on 31 October 2019.
What was the corrigendum?
- 52 Errors were detected
- The corrigendum had to correct as many as 52 errors in the Act, from simple spelling mistakes to incorrectly referenced laws.
- For example, the administrator was labeled‘ Administrator’ while the article became’ Article,’ territories-‘ Territories,’ Shariat-‘ Shariet,‘ Safai Karamcharis-‘ Safaikaramcharis’
- Even before corrections were informed, the Act specified that the J&K parliamentary constituencies would be demarcated.
- The corrigenda, however, said the sentence was now omitted.
- Other main errors include’ Jammu and Kashmir State’ for’ Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory,” Institutions Act, 2005′ for’ Institutions Act, 2004,” 1951′ for’ 1909.’
Other such cases?
- This was not an occurrence in isolation.
- The ministry has frequently had to issue these corrections, especially when it comes to ordinances such as those amending the corporate income tax law.
- They seem to have been drawn up quickly and without adequate consultation.
- No formal changes or corrections shall be given on other occasions.
- In such situations, the Minister concerned gives the Parliament oral assurance that any defects in the wording of the law would be addressed when the applicable rules are published.
Larger concern?
- This represents the lack of application of the mind that seems to have crept into the executive’s legislative process.
- The persistent weakening of the proper process of policy-making and legislation is another troubling source.
- Drafting errors, if not detected, can have ramifications much later in the future.
- Tax mistakes are particularly dangerous because they can leave loopholes that can be exploited by private lawyers and accountants.
- On the other hand, closing them retroactively would have a very negative impact on public opinion and the trust of investors.
Measure taken
- The Secretariat of the Cabinet has recently written to the various ministries and departments of the Union.
- It was noted that draft Cabinet Notes must be circulated well in advance.
- Before the legislative process starts, any flaws or contradictions may be found.
- The Cabinet Secretariat and the Prime Minister’s Office should also be allotted at least 15 days.
- The documents in question and the regular inter-ministerial meetings shall be reviewed.
- This is the recommended time to finalize notes in the Cabinet Notes Handbook.
Matter of concern
- The Secretariat of the Cabinet should be commended for taking action to remind the ministries and departments of this issue.
- The real problem, though, is the complexity of the decision-making process.
- In absolute secrecy, too many major policy changes with significant legal implications are being made.
- Inadequate consultation within the government or with the Parliament is becoming the norm.
- Unrealistic and imprudent timelines for major changes are being forced on the bureaucracy for key decisions.
Way forward
- Fear of major changes leaks and public discussion is contrary to the spirit of representative liberal democracy, with negative implications for quality governance.
- The legislative process and policy changes underlying it has developed to eliminate error and optimize performance, which should be valued.
- It is essential to enhance capacity-building within the state.
- Public discussion should be formalized and notes and drafts from the Cabinet and draft legislation taken seriously.
References
