Modi govt’s policy of no discussion and few disclosures is putting democracy at risk

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the need to facilitate participative democracy is even greater. However, a pattern of the PLCP getting subverted and sidelined is emerging.

The Draft Trafficking in Persons (Prevention, Care and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2021 (Trafficking Bill) will get discussed in the Rajya Sabha during the ongoing Monsoon Session. The Centre provided two weeks for the public to submit objections and suggestions to the policy.

Activist groups have criticised the allotted time as “inadequate for any meaningful or effective consultation”. The duration allotted conflicts with the requirement of 30 days established in the PLCP. Thus, it attempts to subvert the existing and well-defined process of public consultation.

The Trafficking Bill is yet another instance of legislation introduced by the Centre that inhibits public participation in democracy.

The Draft Lakshadweep Regulations consists of three regulations about land development, anti-social activities and animal cruelty. The first two regulations provided three weeks for feedback, while the third provided four weeks. The President promulgated these laws under Article 240, effectively doing away with the norms in the PCLP.

Note that these draft regulations promulgated under Article 240 have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament. The vernacular versions of these regulations have also not been published, which is not in sync with the general practice for laws that affect local groups, which must get widely publicised.

The government has justified the absence of local-language drafts, saying it is not a legal obligation to publish vernacular versions. Its response demonstrates the utter disregard of the government for public participation.

Indeed, the government has deliberately avoided providing a fundamental guarantee in a participative democracy. Union Territories such as Lakshadweep do not have legislative assemblies. Their representation in Parliament is minimal, too.

It should prompt proactive initiatives to promote public participation in decision-making. Yet, the reality is in clear contrast to what people need. In the case of the legislation on Lakshadweep, neither representative nor participatory democracy seems to be available for the public.

The Central government’s attempts to inhibit the growth of participative democracy extend to legislative and executive action. The foremost example is how it has brought forth the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Policy (Draft EIA Policy).

In March 2020, the government issued a notification publishing the Draft EIA Policy inviting comments from the public within 60 days which the government later extended. As the announcement came at the start of the national lockdown, the timeframe was inadequate, making the exercise of collecting public feedback meaningless. The policy was also not published in vernacular languages.