Key To Thoughtful Legislation: Creation of a Consultative Council

Sachin Tendulkar’s ostensible disregard for his attendance at the Council of States, to which he was appointed by the President in 2012, highlights a crucial problem with the nominees elevated to the Rajya Sabha, which is their apparent disinterest in parliamentary proceedings. Article 80(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution highlights that twelve members shall be nominated by the President to the Council of States. The nomination of the retired cricketer Mr. Navjot Singh Sidhu, among others, reflects upon the urgency to rethink about the stated clause and introduce a permanent body that is competent enough to aid the Parliament in law making.

An alternative to Clause (a) of Article 80 was suggested by Prof. K.T. Shah in the Constituent Assembly Debates in 1949. His speech termed legislative drafting as a ‘fine art’ and a task too complicated for majority of the people’s representatives, whom he thought of as “laymen”. He advised the framing of what he termed as the ‘Consultative Council’, which in his opinion, must be a permanent body established by a constitutional mandate to aid the Parliament in drafting legislations.

Inspired by Lord Hewett’s concept of New Despotism, which is a theory to arm the civil services with wide discretionary powers including quasi-judicial decision making, Professor Shah recommended the formation of a body that includes experts from the fields of agriculture, industry, commerce, mining, forestry, engineering, public utilities, social service and economics to advise the Parliament and the Council of Ministers in matters concerning their respective fields. He asserted that these members would not be lawmakers in the true sense of the word, as they will not be burdened with any administrative or executive functions like the other members, and their sole objective would be to concentrate on building sound legislations.

 He then went on to submit that the Council should only be selected on merit. Training and experience in the said fields must be the sole criterion for inclusion in the body. He further suggested that these members should be paid handsomely and be given due respect for their contribution to the Parliament and influence on the Council of Ministers.

The said proposition was submitted before the assembly vide Amendment No. 1377 to Article 80. However, it was criticised by a few members. R.K. Sidwa opposed the proposition on the ground that the number of members proposed by Professor Shah to each committee was not agreeable. He contended that the government on previous occasions had consulted experts in matters of importance and there was no need for a constitutional provision for such a committee when it can be constituted under an Act passed by the Parliament. In his opinion, giving the committee a constitutional status will result in giving them undue privilege.

The list of critics also included Dr. Ambedkar, who, like Sidwa, argued that the government indeed consults experts before passing a Bill. His substantive argument, favouring his own amendment, was firstly, that the twelve nominated members by the President, were sufficient as expert opinion, and secondly, he proposed to later move an amendment that allowed the President to nominate three additional members, whenever the President felt necessary to do so. He submitted that these experts must continue to be members of the House, till the bill requiring their assistance is disposed of, but stated that they should not be allowed to vote.

Certainly, the proposal of Professor Shah was noted on valid grounds in the light of circumstances prevailing post-independence, when members possessed plenty of verve towards the construction of legislations. However, contemporary nominees are not as dedicated as their predecessors and they remain persistent in carrying on with their former occupations or venture into new ones and disregard their parliamentary obligations. Another argument against nomination under current circumstances is that twelve expert nominees is not an appropriate number to persuade two hundred and thirty-eight other members with their expertise.

Professor Shah additionally recommended that the clause needed to be more comprehensive. The author is of the opinion that Professor Shah’s recommendation has an edge over the existing clause, as in addition to the current fields from where nomination of persons should be done, namely, arts, literature, science, and social service, it provides for categories that are less ambiguous, legislation centric and are branches of governance that have the largest impact on people. Lastly, although it is true that the government does form expert committees to aid in legislation making, it is also a well-known fact that the constitution and functioning of these committees is rather cumbersome.

Thus, this suggestion proposing a permanent body with high expertise is the need of the hour; however, it must be restructured to include areas of lawmaking that have evolved due to growing security concerns, changing geopolitical motives, technological expansions, booming businesses and climate change. The success of this idea is essential to set out thoughtful legislation and a higher benchmark for law making bodies worldwide.

About the Author:

Nazeer U. Khan, is a 5th year BBA.LLB. student from the Faculty of Law, IFHE. He is holds high interest for the legality of armed conflict and is a staunch pacifist.

Read more »

War Against the World: A Look Into the Environmental Impact of War.

“A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people. ” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt

Through the course of time, there has been a metamorphosis in how war is fought. Humans have gone from using light wooden chariots in vast battlefields to 60-tonne tanks in congested streets. With every such paradigm shift, the critics of the war have devised relevant propaganda to depopularise it. From Mutually Assured Destruction to poverty and draining of resources, we’ve said it all. However, one of the most destructive facets of war which also happens to be the one that is least talked about – Its Environmental Impact – must urgently find its way into anti-war propaganda. 

Syria

The environmental impacts of war start right from the assembly line way before someone can shout “incoming”!  In 2015 the world managed a global defence trade of nearly a trillion dollars. That accounts for thousands of tanks, planes, and bullets one can’t even count. Such massive production of war inventory leads to the emissions of millions of units of toxic substances which are released into the air or water. The effects of such emissions are well known and result in global warming, the melting of ice caps and a slow contribution towards the apocalypse. The development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons has added yet another nail in an already sealed coffin, that holds the survival of humanity.

Moving on to the battlefield, the M1 Abrams main battle tank of the U.S. army takes more gas just to power up than a normal car would use in a day’s work. The point to be made here is that military vehicles, vessels, and planes are fuel guzzling machines which cause harmful emissions like carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide apart from chlorofluorocarbons that feed ravenously on the ozone layer and lay a huge burden on natural resources. But far more harmful are the effects of the ammunition dropped in conflicts zones. During the Vietnam war America dropped a chemical substance known as Agent Orange on the Vietnamese jungles. The sole purpose of this concoction was to clear the forests to eradicate cover for the Vietcong. All the way from 1962 – 1971 Agent Orange was responsible for the destruction of nearly 15% of the total forest cover over Vietnam and lasting ailments on the indigenous wildlife and inhabitants.

Conventional bombs also generate massive bursts of heat when detonated. This explosion that burns at nearly three thousand degrees centigrade has the potential to annihilate flora and fauna. It also erodes the top layer of the soil which could take nearly 7000 years to regenerate. Further, all hell has broken lose since the eruption of the Middle Eastern crisis. The Gulf is the fuel barrel of the world. The entire war, people speculate, is for the oil. Burning of oil wells by retreating militants and stray bombs engulf the entire vicinity in a shroud of harmful discharge. Apart from causing air pollution, this results in respiratory problems, cancers and a wide range of life-threatening conditions. Lastly one of the most gruesome facts of war (and my strongest points) is the trail of decomposing bodies it leaves behind. Rotting human flesh not only results in bad order, it attracts various bacteria which are in turn responsible for the spreading of epidemics and diseases that ruin the local environment.

After staying silent for nearly half a century the global community has finally started to acknowledge the adverse environmental impacts of armed conflict. The United Nation Environment Programme has begun studying the impacts in places of crisis like Syria. Though only a few surveys have been taken up due to extensive conflict, initial reports reveal massive degradation of the already scarce agricultural land. Further UNEP has observed, due to the bombing that has quite literally flattened cities like Aleppo, residents face severe respiratory problems due to constant dust arising from the debris and smoke. Further Vice News featured a video that shows little children in war-torn Syria playing in a bomb crater filled with water from a damaged sewer pipe. This leads me to believe that bombing has damaged the city’s underground plumbing, thus infecting ground water and drinking water pipes. However, the true extent of damage can only be judged when the dust from the falling bombs settles and full-scale studies are initiated.

Palestine 

Through resolution 56/4, the United Nations declared November 6^th of every year as The International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict. Sadly, this proclamation is one of the biggest among a few steps taken by the U.N. in furtherance of curbing environmental impacts of war. Though some principals of international human rights laws and conventions such as UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) (1976) protect the environment from the harmful impacts of war, no comprehensive legal framework exists. There is an urgent need for a universally accepted legislation that lays down liability for causing degradation and prohibits all wrongful acts.

Thus, to conclude I would say that an environmental stance should be opted by the global community to de-popularise war. It’s easier said than done, but if a kid can burn fewer crackers on Diwali with a little push, I’m sure states can choose to drop fewer bombs as well. That would be a start.

About the Author:

Nazeer U. Khan, is a 5th year BBA.LLB. student from the Faculty of Law, IFHE. He is holds high interest for the legality of armed conflict and is a staunch pacifist.

Read more »