[Lakshadweep] Plea in Kerala HC seeks "sufficient opportunity" to public for expressing opinion on Draft LDAR, Animal Preservation Regulations

A plea has been filed before the Kerala High Court raising concerns that citizens have not been given adequate opportunity to express their views and objections on the Draft Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation, 2021 (LDAR) and the Draft Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulations, 2021 (LAPR)..The petition moved by the Rawther Federation through its member and resident in Lakshadweep, Shaik Mujeebu Rahman NPP, contended that the circulars inviting public comments on these regulations were published only in a namesake manner by the Lakshadweep government. ."The petitioner herein is hence aggrieved by the act of the respondents in not affording sufficient opportunity to the citizens of Lakshadweep including himself to participate in the pre- legislative scrutiny of regulations which are likely to have direct impact upon the lives of the people ... The act of the respondent herein in not affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioners and other citizens/residents of Lakshadweep to express their comments, opinions and suggestions with regard to the proposed regulations is high-handed, arbitrary and against the principles of good law," the petition stated..The LDAR had run into controversy on concerns that it would affect the rights of the islanders to retain properties owned by them if they are taken over by administrative authorities for development purposes. The LAPR, which has banned cow/ bull/ bullock slaughter, has also faced criticism from various quarters since majority of the island population are non-vegetarians. .Among other prayers, the petition called for granting an additional 30 days for the public to give their comments on the Draft LADR and the LAPR. .Another prayer made was regarding the need to publish the draft Lakshadweep Panchayat Regulation 2021, which is stated to have been removed from the government's website. This regulation provides for the disqualification of Panchayat members having more than two children.. Highlights of the contentions made by the petitioner.1. There ought to have been effective pre-legislative consultation. In 2014, the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, had formulated a policy for pre-legislative consultation which should invariably be followed by every Ministry/Department of the Central Government before any legislative proposal is submitted to the Cabinet for its consideration and approval. This 2014 notification calls for the concerned government department or Ministry to "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 same mechanism has been followed by the authorities of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep with respect to a new regulations proposed by the President of India, through the Administrator.The petitioner emphasised that these guidelines require the proactive publication of the proposed laws so that it reaches the public who may want to give their comments, and not a mere namesake publication..2. Was the notice and the draft laws diligently published or were they suppressed until last date of submitting comments?The petitioner said that on February 25, 2021, the Department of Animal Husbandry published a notice on the official website of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep (www.lakshadweep.gov.in) inviting comments from the members on or before March 28, 2021 on the proposed Draft Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulations, 2021. The LAPR was published on March 28. On April 28, the Lakshadweep Building Development Body published a notice inviting comments from the members on or before May 19, 2021 on the Draft Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation 2021. Accordingly, the LDAR was published on the official website on April 28. The Draft Lakshadweep Panchayath Regulations, 2021 was also published on the official website on February 25, again placing the same for public opinion and comments.Pertinently, the petitioners pointed out that while the date of publication of the proposed regulations on the official website was as early as in the months of February and March, 2021, the public outcry and criticism to these proposed laws was expressed by the citizens of Lakshadweep during the later half of the month of May, 2021. "This clearly give rise to a possible suspicion regarding the mode of publication of the notice." the petitioners contended. As such, they have raised the following questions:(a) Whether there has been maladies in the publication of the said public notice? (b) Was the public notice actually published on the dates mentioned on them? (c) Was the notice and the draft laws suppressed from the public till the last date for expression of comments, opinion and suggestions was over? (d) Was the draft regulations and notice actually made available to the public? (e) Was the publication only carried out as a namesake formalities to show compliance with the directions of the Ministry of Law and Justice? (f) Is the common man expected to be aware of the proposed new regulations upon mere publication of a circular in the official website? (g) Was the notice and the draft laws diligently published through any other means or mode to ensure that the same reaches the affected masses?.3. Invitation of comments on LDAR, LAPR was done in a namesake mannerThe petitioner contended that there has been a suppression of the public notice inviting comments on the Draft LDAR and LAPR for ulterior benefits. It should not have been a mere namesake publication. There ought to have been pro-active publication so that the notice reached the stakeholders effectively for their deliberations, it was argued. ."The respondent has resorted to the publication of Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P3 notices in a namesake manner without giving it the much needed attention and publicity whereby the respondents have tried to impose upon the people of Lakshadweep, certain regulations which is highly detrimental to their interests. Due importance is given to the doctrine of legitimate expectation wherein the citizens of the territory expect and anticipate, best interest principles to be adopted and followed by their governing body," the petitioner submitted..The petitioner asserted that it is important to have public scrutiny in the pre-legislative phase. Genuine democracy requires much more than pre- publication and solicitation of comments, the plea stated further. "Citizens too must play their part, by debating and deliberating upon upcoming Bills in a process of dialogic engagement with each other and with lawmakers", it added.Such consultation would improve the proposed legislation, strengthen the government and enable the smooth implementation of the legislation, the petitioners submitted. .4. Legal infirmities and practical difficultiesConcern was also raised that the controversial amendments fail to factor in the history and culture of Lakshwadeep. Moreover, it was submitted that the draft laws involve legal infirmities and practical difficulties if they are implemented in Lakshadweep"For example, the respondents failed to appraise the fact that by bringing into the said regulation of Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulations, the respondents is acting against the Right to Choice of Food. However the petitioner does not want to step into the demerits of these legislations at this point of time and is desirous of expressing the same upon receiving a sufficient opportunity for the same", it was stated. .The following prayers were made by the petitioner:.1.To call for records showing that the Draft LDAR and LAPR, 202 were made available to the public other than through the official website, affording sufficient opportunity to the citizens to express their opinion.2. To direct the authorities to grant sufficient time to the petitioner and other citizens of Lakshadweep to express their opinion, comments and suggestions with respect to the draft laws.3. To direct the authorities to extend the deadline granted to the petitioner and other citizens of Lakshadweep to express their opinion, comments and suggestions with respect to the draft laws for another 30 days (from April 28 for the LDAR and from March 28 for the LAPR) so that sufficient opportunity is given to the petitioner and other citizens of Lakshadweep to voice their opinion.4. To direct the authorities to give sufficient publicity to the draft laws proposed to be promulgated so that sufficient opportunity is given to the petitioner and other citizens of Lakshadweep to voice their opinion.5. To direct the authorities to consider the opinion, comments and suggestions put forth by the petitioner and other citizens of Lakshadweep with respect draft laws proposed before enacting the same to ensure that the said laws are not imposed upon the citizens of Lakshadweep by compromising their fundamental rights.6. To direct the authorities to publish the draft of the Lakshadweep Panchayat Regulation 2021, which was taken away from the official website of the Lakshadweep Government..The petitioner was filed through advocates Harikrishnan Vijayaraghavan, Sriram Parakkat, KP Sripathi and Anupama Subramanian..Read Draft Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation, 2021