Mohammed Faizal (MP) Files Plea in Kerala High Court pleads to Publish Lakshadweep Proposed Drat Regulation in Vernacular Languages, KHC Seeks Response from Centre
(Judicial Quest News Network)
In a significant move the Kerala High Court directed Lakshadweep administration and the Central government to file their response to a plea seeking directions to place vernacular versions of proposed draft regulations for the islands in the public domain.
The plea was filed by PP Mohammed Faizal MP.
A division Bench of Justice S. Mani Kumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly issued directions to file response in two weeks.
The petitioner contend that it is the fundamental right of the citizens to have any draft or proposed bill in their mother tongue .In this context, it is respectfully submitted that the need for dissemination of information in the vernacular languages has been recognised by the constitutional courts in the country as an integral part of the public consultation process.
in that view of the matter, placing the draft regulations in the ‘public domain’ in its Anglicised version without publication in the vernacular language is a negation of the fundamental right of the indigenous population to receive information with respect to the probable impact of the proposed legislation to their life, liberty and way of living.
It is further submitted that the respondents should place the vernacular (Malayalam & Mahal) versions of Exhibits P3 to P8 draft notifications in the public domain, including through the print media and electronic media, together with a brief justification (Statement of Objects and Reasons) of the proposed regulations, essential elements of the proposed regulations, its broader financial implications, and an estimated assessment of the impact of such legislation on environment, fundamental rights, lives and livelihoods of the indigenous population of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep.
The petitioner PP Mohammed Faizal the sole Member of Parliament from the Union Territory of Lakshadweep elected consecutively for a second term to the 17th Lok Sabha.
The petitioner contended that Lakshadweep has a very fragile eco System which cannot endure human intervention beyond a point. Lakshadweep waters are home to variety of threatened and endangered marine life. Resultantly, Lakshadweep is declared as a ‘protected area’ under Schedule I in Wildlife Protection Act 1972 and also under the Biological Diversities Act 2002. It is imperative that draft of any proposed regulation under Article 240 is made known to the interested stakeholders, in this case the mostly indigenous populace of the islands, sufficiently in advance to ensure public participation in the rule making process.
It is in the backdrop of the above constitutional provisions, particularly, Clause (2) of Article 240 that the present endeavour on the part of the Lakshadweep Administration to roll out Regulations having far reaching consequences for the life, liberty and way of living of the indigenous population, without conducting any impact assessment of the proposed regulations and without any prior public consultation, is to be viewed.
Even a cursory consideration of the subjects dealt with by the proposed regulations would lead to the indubitable conclusion that the said Regulations, if approved without modifications, would have far reaching consequences; impact the life, liberty and way of living of the indigenous population; and, lead to grave incursions into their hitherto insulated mode of living and their unique social customs.
Advocate P.Deepak Appeared for the petitioner
No publication in the vernacular language
As stated herein before, the vernacular language of all islands except Minicoy is Malayalam and that of Minicoy is Mahal with Divehi as its script. In all islands, barring Minicoy, all official/governmental notices and communications, including radio announcements are invariably done in Malayalam. Whereas in Minicoy such notices, communication, announcements et cetera are done in Mahal language.
Languages other than Malayalam and Mahal are alien to the majority of the indigenous population. The courts in Lakshadweep records the evidence and statements in Malayalam. Viewed in the above context placing the Anglicized versions of the draft regulations in the ‘public domain’ and eliciting suggestions/comments within 21 days of such publication tantamount to no-publication at all.
Lack of internet connectivity/low bandwidth
Interestingly, the ‘publication’ and placement of the draft regulations in the ‘public domain’ was carried out solely by uploading the same in the official website of the Lakshadweep Administration.
Even the fortnightly issues of the newsletter, namely, Lakshadweep Times published from Kavaratti in both English and Malayalam by the Director of Information and Public Relations for and on behalf of the Lakshadweep Administration during this period did not contain any notice regarding uploading of the draft regulations on the official website or a gist of the proposed regulations let alone a full and complete publication of the same.
That is to say, the mode of circulation of the draft notifications was not only done in English, excluding the vernacular, but also by hosting it exclusively in the official website of the Lakshadweep administration.
Insufficient time to respond
As stated hereinbefore, the public notices published in the months of January, February and March of this year required the objections/suggestions, if any, to be filed within 21 to 30 days from the date of publication either through registered post or email. Apart from the language and connectivity issues highlighted in the preceding paragraphs the time stipulated for filing objections/suggestions also proved wholly inadequate viewed in the context of the prohibitory orders/lockdown imposed in all islands of the archipelago on account of the Covid 19 pandemic.
In other words, the entire exercise of uploading of the draft regulations in the official website of the administration and calling for objections/suggestions in the prevailing circumstances was merely a pretense and an attempt to do lip service to a rudimentary kind of pre-legislative consultation. It is also a manifestation of all the ills plaguing lawmaking in the country where new regulations are added on the fly, without review of existing regulations, transparent consultations, or due consideration for costs and benefits, compliance burden, or regulatory coherence. The World Bank’s Global Indicators for Regulatory Governance indicating India’s response to 3 parameters, namely, Regulatory Impact Assessment, Public Consultation and Ex-post Review.
It was in the above backdrop that the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, taking into consideration the recommendations of the National Advisory Council, The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution and the practice followed in other countries, convened a meeting of the Committee of Secretaries under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary on 10/01/2014 wherein decisions were taken regarding Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy (PLCP) including principal and subordinate legislation. Relevant points of the decisions taken in the said meeting are extracted hereunder-
The petitioner has strongly urged the Court to
Direct the respondents to obtain specific reports from National Centre of Earthe Scienc Studies (NCESS) and the National Centre for Sustainable Coast Management (NCSCM) with resprect to the viablitiy/impact of the proposed regulations vis-a vis the integrated Islands Management Plans (IIMPs)
Every Department/Ministry shall proactively publish the proposed legislations both on the internet as also through other means; the detailed modalities of such publication may be worked out by the Department/Ministry concerned.
The Department/Ministry concerned should publish/place in public domain the draft legislation or at least the information that may inter alia include brief justification for such legislation, essential elements of the proposed legislation, its 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. Such details may be kept in the public domain for a minimum period of thirty days for being proactively shared with the public in such manner as may be specified by the Department/Ministry concerned.
