New Delhi : The Congress on Thursday criticised Finance Minister Arun Jaitley for floating a ‘false balloon’ of the states amending the 2013 land acquisition law if it remains blocked in Parliament by the Opposition, asserting that such an act will be ‘unconstitutional’.
“The 2013 law is anchored on Entry 42 of the Constitution, putting the acquisition of properties in the concurrent list, and as such the states can improve it but can’t subtract benefits from it”, affirmed Congress spokesman Jairam Ramesh, who had initiated the Bill as then rural development minister and who is also a member of the joint committee of Parliament examining the Bill brought by the Modi government to dilute the 2013 Act on the pretext that it was blocking developmental activities.
At a press briefing, Ramesh said that the concurrent list empowers the states to make own laws but enactment of any such law in contravention of the central law will be unconstitutional. The idea suggested by Jaitley that the states wanting to remove the hurdles in rapid development can enact own law is possible only if the central law is withdrawn or repealed, he said.
Jaitley claimed the idea actually came from many chief ministers in the NITI Ayog meeting, but the Prime Minister did not act on it immediately, promising to consider it while still trying to push the Bill in the upcoming Parliament session. The ruling BJP had reportedly asked its CMs to suggest the alternative to the blocked Bill in Parliament as a strategy to browbeat the Opposition not allowing its passage.
If any State Legislature passes a Bill to dilute the provisions of the Act enacted by Parliament in 2013, it will have to come to the Centre for approval and the Centre has to abide by the Constitution to advise the President to reject it, Ramesh added. The legislative powers of Parliament and the State Legislature are defined under Article 246 that have been examined by the Supreme Court umpteen times to rule that the doctrine of ‘pith and substance’ will prevail whenever there is a conflict between the laws passed by the two.
