After protests, Rajya Sabha clears dam bill, Lok Sabha sees 117% productivity

NEW DELHI: Despite protests and some disruptions, Parliament reflected a semblance of normalcy on Thursday with the Lok Sabha discussing the Covid situation and the Rajya Sabha passing the Dam Safety Bill, 2019, with DMK forcing a division over an amendment, even though several other opposition parties were not present in the House.
After disruptions for a couple of days, the Lok Sabha on Wednesday witnessed 117% productivity as 109 members spoke during Zero Hour and a total of 140 members spoke during the day that included an exhaustive discussion under Rule 193 on the Covid situation and its fallout. Discussion under Rule 193 does not involve a formal motion before the House.
Speaker Om Birla held several rounds of informal discussions with floor leaders and assured he will give ample time for discussion on issues by extending time for the Zero Hour. “Even the TRS members (who have been in the well of the House demanding a law on MSP for farm produce) were urged by the Speaker to stop protests and raise the issues for which they were given time,” said a senior leader.
The Rajya Sabha passed the Dam Safety Bill, 2019, after jal shakti minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat rejected the Opposition’s charge that it was “unconstitutional” and “anti-federal” in that it encroached upon the states’ legislative domain. He clarified the Bill is not intended to encroach upon states’ rights on their waters, dam ownership or maintenance, or even resources like power, but only seeks to ensure safety norms and prevent dam-related disasters that result in great loss to life and property.
An amendment moved by DMK member Tiruchi Siva to send the Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha in 2019, to a select committee was negated with 80 ‘Noes’ against 28 ‘Ayes’.
The Bill provides for surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of the specified dams for prevention of disasters caused by dam failure and creation of an institutional mechanism to ensure their safe functioning.
During the four-hour debate, MPs from the opposition benches were united in slamming it as unconstitutional, arguing that Entry 17 of List 1 of the Constitution gives states exclusive rights to regulate water supplies and embankments, and even Entry 56 did not mention dam safety among the exceptions to Entry 17. Congress MP Shakti Sinh Gohil said when his party brought a Bill in 2010 citing Article 252, the preamble mentioned that only if two or more states made a request, such a Bill on dam safety could be brought by the Centre.
Incidentally, both West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh assemblies have earlier passed resolutions stating Centre should not legislate on dam safety and related regulations.
Replying to the debate, Shekhawat tried to allay apprehensions about the Bill being ‘unconstitutional’, saying that the standing committee that had cleared the Bill had observed that the Centre could bring a legislation on dam safety regulations in public interest. This view was further endorsed by Solicitor General.