Witness, Not Wielder: The Constitutional Role of the CJI in the Presidential Oath

A widely accepted narrative and practice in India is that the Chief Justice of India (CJI)

administers the oath of office to the President during the oath-taking ceremony.

However, a careful reading of the Constitution reveals that this common belief is not entirely

accurate. The Constitution deliberately distinguishes between the roles of the President and

the Chief Justice in the oath-taking process, and the specific wording used clearly shows

that the Chief Justice’s role is primarily that of a witness, not an administrator.

This article explores these constitutional nuances, focusing on the precise language in

Articles 60 and 124(6), comparing them with related provisions for Governors and High

Court judges, and reflecting on resignation procedures and oath content to dispel this

popular myth.

Article 60: What the Constitution Actually Says

Article 60 of the Constitution states:

“Every President and every person acting as President or discharging the functions of the

President shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe in the presence of the

Chief Justice of India, or, in his absence, the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court

available, an oath or affirmation in the following form…”

— Article 60, Constitution of India

Thus, the President takes the oath “in the presence of” the Chief Justice of India — not

before him as a superior, and not by having it administered by him.

Article 124(6): A Different Language, A Different Role

Article 124(6), which governs the oath of Supreme Court judges, reads:

“Every person appointed to be a Judge of the Supreme Court shall, before he enters upon

his office, make and subscribe before the President, or some person appointed in that

behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the

Third Schedule.”

— Article 124(6), Constitution of India

Here, the phrase “before the President” indicates that the President has the authority to

administer the oath and may even delegate it to someone else.

This contrast between “in the presence of” (used in Article 60) and “before” (used in

Article 124(6)) reflects a constitutional distinction between merely witnessing an oath

and having the authority to administer it.

This textual difference between Articles 60 and 124(6) is not incidental — it reflects a

deeper constitutional design, which becomes clearer when we consider the rules for

delegation and authority.

Delegation of Authority: A Subtle but Significant Difference

Article 60 stipulates that in the absence of the Chief Justice, the senior-most judge of the

Supreme Court available shall be present — not a person delegated by the CJI.

“…in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or, in his absence, the senior-most Judge of

the Supreme Court available…”

— Article 60

This is a fixed constitutional succession, not a discretionary delegation by the CJI. The

Chief Justice has no administrative authority over the oath-taking process.

In contrast, Article 124(6) allows the President to delegate the authority to administer the

oath to judges of the Supreme Court. This demonstrates a clear constitutional intent when

administrative authority is intended to be conferred.

Constituent Assembly Debate: Article 49 of Draft Constitution / Article 60 of Present

Indian Constitution:

While reviewing the Constituent Assembly debates, I came across Amendment No. 1144,

proposed by Shri T. T. Krishnamachari during discussions on Article 49 of the Draft

Constitution:

Shri T. T. Krishnamachari:

Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move:

 "That in Article 49, after the words 'Chief Justice of India' the words "or, in his absence the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court available' be inserted."

Sir, this is only making a provision in case the Chief Justice of India is not present, some

other Judge should do his function, and it is but proper that the senior-most judge of the

Supreme Court should do this function. Sir, I trust the House will accept the amendment

because it needs no further explanation.

Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar, do you accept that amendment?

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, I do.

During the debate, Shri T. T. Krishnamachari’s deliberate use of the word “function” instead

of terms like “duty” or “administer” is noteworthy. This choice underscores the ceremonial

nature of the President’s oath-taking. According to Article 60 of the present Constitution, the

President takes the oath “in the presence” of the Chief Justice, indicating that the Chief

Justice’s role — or that of the senior-most judge in their absence — is primarily ceremonial,

serving as a witness to the event rather than actively administering the oath.

Resignation Protocols: Revealing the Real Constitutional Chain of Command

The Constitution also distinguishes the offices of the President and the Chief Justice in

terms of to whom they must resign:

 President’s resignation (Article 56(1)(a)):

“The President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Vice-President, resign his

office.”

Although the Vice-President is constitutionally subordinate to the President, the President

addresses his resignation to the Vice-President because, under Article 65(1) and (2), the

Vice-President assumes the role of Acting President in circumstances such as resignation,

removal, death, absence, illness or any inability of the President to discharge the functions

of the office.

 Supreme Court judge’s resignation (Article 124(2)):

“A Judge of the Supreme Court may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President,

resign his office.”

The President does not resign to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice (as a judge) must

resign to the President. This clearly places the President above the Chief Justice in

constitutional authority.

Why Only the Chief Justice or Senior-most Judge?

The Constitution deliberately names the Chief Justice of India (or the senior-most Supreme

Court judge in their absence) as the only authority in whose presence the President must

take the oath, excluding all other officials.

This requirement is not merely a formality but carries significant practical and constitutional

implications. Since the Chief Justice or the senior-most judge personally witnesses the

President taking the oath, their presence serves as an official and authoritative confirmation

that the oath has been duly administered in the proper manner.

In case any doubt or legal question arises later regarding whether the President has

actually taken the oath, or whether the oath was taken correctly as prescribed by the

Constitution, such a question would likely be brought before the Supreme Court. However,

since the Chief Justice (or senior-most judge) was a direct witness to the oath-taking

ceremony, any petition challenging the validity of the oath would likely be dismissed

promptly, possibly without the need for a full hearing.

This arrangement ensures the integrity of the oath-taking process and upholds the dignity of

the President’s office. It prevents frivolous or unnecessary litigation about the President’s

assumption of office, reinforcing that the President’s authority is granted only after fulfilling

this constitutional requirement under the watchful eye of the highest judicial authority.

Governor and High Court Judges: Reinforcing the Distinction

A similar constitutional pattern applies at the state level:

 Governor’s oath (Article 159):

“The Governor of a State shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe an oath

or affirmation... in the presence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of the State or, in

his absence, the senior-most Judge of that Court available.”

 High Court Judges’ oath (Article 219):

“Every Judge of a High Court shall, before he enters upon his office, make and subscribe

before the Governor of the State an oath or affirmation…”

So, again:

 The Governor takes oath in the presence of the Chief Justice of the High Court

(ceremonial).

 The High Court Judge takes oath before the Governor (administrative authority).

This reinforces that “in the presence of” refers to witnessing, not administering.

Hierarchy Reflected in the Oath Content: Different Roles, Different Responsibilities

Even the oath texts reveal differing scopes of responsibility and hierarchy.

 President’s oath (Third Schedule):

“...that I will faithfully execute the office of President of India and will to the best of my ability

preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself

to the service and well-being of the people of India.”

 Chief Justice’s oath (as per Article 124(7) and Third Schedule):

“...that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law

established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and

faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my

office without fear or favour... and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.”

The President pledges to defend the Constitution and serve the people — a national

leadership role and a constitutional guardian.

The Chief Justice pledges bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as

by law established,

This reflects their different constitutional mandates and status.

The Meaning of “In the Presence of”: Witness, Not Administrator

Legally, “in the presence of” implies witnessing, while “before” implies authority to

administer.

The Constitution uses these phrases deliberately:

 President and Governor: oath “in the presence of” judiciary → no administrative

role.

 Judges of SC/HC: oath “before” President/Governor → clear authority to

administer.

The Chief Justice’s role during the President’s oath is that of a constitutional witness, not

an oath administrator.

Although the distinction may appear semantic, it reflects the Constitution’s broader design

to preserve the separation of powers and clarify roles. Misrepresenting ceremonial

presence as administrative authority could lead to incorrect assumptions about judicial

power over the executive, potentially muddying institutional boundaries in times of

constitutional crisis.

Why “Administered” Is Constitutionally Inaccurate

It is a common — but constitutionally incorrect — practice to say that the Chief Justice

“administers” the President’s oath. That word does not appear in Article 60 or the Third

Schedule.

Using such language risks misrepresenting the constitutional framework and the distinct

roles of high offices. Precision in constitutional interpretation is not just semantic — it

protects the clarity of institutional boundaries.

Conclusion: Respecting Constitutional Language and Structure

The Indian Constitution clearly differentiates between witnessing an oath and

administering it. The Chief Justice of India does not administer the President’s oath

— the President takes the oath in his presence, as required by Article 60.

From the language of the Constitution to the hierarchy reflected in resignation

protocols and oath contents, every element affirms this structure.

Let us honor the Constitution by using its language accurately — not just for legal

compliance, but for preserving the dignity and balance of India’s democratic

institutions.

Rupee depreciation against All Major Foreign Currencies

We are hearing one of the arguments regarding exchange rate, that The US economy is becoming strong, is the reason for depreciation of Indian Rupee against Dollar.

Whereas this is not a correct argument, as Indian Rupee is depreciating against all major Foreign Currencies. Below is the list of 16 Foreign Currencies, which is notified by Ministry of Finance for using it for Import Declaration at Customs.

Out of 19 Currencies 16 Currencies has depreciated on an average 18 - 19% in last 8 months, from January, 2013. Few currencies have depreciated even up to 22%.

The currencies which have depreciated approx 5% are Australian Dollar, Danish Kroner & Japanese Yen.

Right to Vote @ 16

Twenty five years before, in year 1988, Article 326 of Constitution was amended. The 61^st amendment Act empowered youth with right to vote. The age of 21 years was lowered by the then government to 18 years.

The decision was welcomed by all as this was a step towards empowering youth and giving them opportunity to express their views in Nation building.

Nothing is static after 25 years, we have to think about the present youth-The scenario & its impact on them.

In year 1988, the youth after passing XII standard was entering in University for Graduation program, he was open to the new world and after completing the graduation was thinking about  job and future prospects.

Whereas after 25 years, today, the student after passing X standard, are serious about their career. They take decision about their studies and future growth. The preparation of either to be an engineer or doctor starts at this age.

The Information technology has empowered them with information, they are not only aware of their society, country but also of the world. They have their views on each topic and while shaping their career they start understanding the system, the governance, but they can’t be part of system as they don’t have the voting right.

The concern is well understood & even noticed by Election Commission of India.

On January, 12, 2011 ( Indian Express ) – ( Quote )

“The Election Commission said it was examining a proposal to reduce the minimum age for voting right to 16 years from the existing 18.

"We may recommend to the government to reduce the minimum voting age to 16 years, if more youths, particularly new voters, participate in the electoral process," Chief Election Commissioner Y S Quraishi told a meeting organised by Youth United for Voter Awareness (YUVA), an NGO.

Though above 35 per cent of voters were youths, their participation was the lowest, he said.

Quraishi said though the minimum voting right age was reduced to 18 from 21 years, participation of new voters was not up to expectation.

As the present day youths were well versed with technologies and comparatively better informed, there was no harm in reducing the minimum voting right age to 16 years, he said.”

One of the concern raised by the then Election Commissioner, that even after reducing age from 21 years to 18 years, participation of new voters was not up to expectation.  

I personally believe that the age of adult suffrage, should be reduced from 18 years to 16 years because of the following reasons:

Reasons  :

1)    Adult Suffrage should be introduced at the age of 16 years :  

At present the right to vote is granted at perhaps the worst possible moment in our life. If we see at the age of 18, most of us have passed our 12^th exam and it’s the time to leave our home town for higher better education. We leave our Community we have lived in for most our life. The time when we are supposed to vote we either have a new community that we are unfamiliar with or we must attempt to vote absentee back home, a process that turns off many of us as a new voter.

By lowering the voting right at age of 16 will give the youth to vote who have roots in a community, have a concern for local issues, and will be more enthusiasm about voting than those just two years older. Youth at this stage of life start understand about society and they feel comfortable in their surroundings, school, parents, and with stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote.

2)    Voter turnout will increase because of lowering the Voting Age:

We all understand that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. Government and Parents make attempt to prevent youth from picking up bad habits, then why not we can encourage youth for being accountable to country by introducing a good habit at young age. If these young people start voting at the right age, most likely they will stick to this habit. 

3)    If an illiterate adult can vote, then why not let smart youth vote?

In our system the Adult suffrage is just related to age limit. Most of us argue that the youth should not vote because they lack information and intelligent decision. In the era of Information technology, youth are the most informative citizen. This argument of lacking information doesn’t apply to all citizens who are age 18 years. We have seen many illiterate voting, who don’t even know the name of the candidate for whom they are voting.

We also don’t deny voting right to those who have break the law and have been punished by the court, nor do we deprive any of the people who are alcoholics, neurotics, psychotics.

4) Lowering the voting age will motivate youth and will make feel them part of the society:

We have seen many youth showing disinterest towards politics and many are filled with inferiority complex for being citizen of this country. They feel helpless towards the present situation of our country. Empowering them with right to vote will have a direct effect on their character, intelligence and sense of responsibility. 16 is the age when they start looking at the society in which they have to step in, they want a better society for which they can feel proud off. After 18 years of their life they are already in the society with their own difficulties and problems which make them feel turned off by politics and don't vote? 

5) When government is thinking of reducing Juvenile definition for punishment from 18 to 16, then why not voting right ?

Feb, 4, 2013, Time of India

The Supreme Court decided on Monday to examine the constitutional validity of the provision giving the definition of juvenile in the Juvenile Justice Act which treats a person as a minor till he attains the age of 18 years.

The apex court has issued notice to the Centre on a PIL seeking lowering of age of juvenile to 16 years from the present 18 years.

6) Voting ages around the world of few countries less than 18 years :

National minimum age of 17 include East Timor, Indonesia, North Korea, Sudan and Sudan.

The minimum age is 16 in Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey (three self-governing British Crown Dependencies).

People aged 16–18 can vote in Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro if employed.

Some countries have variable provision for the minimum voting age, whereby a lower age is set for eligibility to vote in state, regional or municipal elections.

The Indian Dollar Story

We all are talking about depreciation of Rupee, stating that it’s falling like the character of the present Cabinet. We all know many Cabinet ministers in the present government have resigned or sacked because of depreciation in their honesty. I checked the contribution of our great economist PM in falling of Rupee and found that Mr. Economist have a good record in past too. Let me assure the  Rupee will come back at 54 per dollar before a month of election, as you have seen RBI not getting in action to control, the reason is black money will come for election purpose, will increase demand of Rupee in comparison to Dollar.

Year	Rs / Dollar	Government	Details
1990	17.50
1991	22.72	Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister in Congress Government	Even after so called liberalization and boasting of Manmohan Singh economic policy, the depreciation was 56.33% (22.72 - 35.52 = 12.80 ) or in other words depreciation of  Rs. 2.56 per year
1992	28.14
1993	31.36
1994	31.39
1995	32.53
1996	35.52
1997	36.36
1998	41.33	BJP Government in Centre	The USD/ INR was 41.33, even after Nuclear Test and US Economic Sanction the depreciation was only 9.55% in 6 years ( From 41.33 - 45.28 = 3.95 ) Or in other words depreciation of 0.65 paisa per year
1999	43.12
2000	45.00
2001	47.13
2002	48.62
2003	46.50
2004	45.28
2005	44.01	Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister in Congress Government	The USD/ INR was 45.28, and Congress Economist PM by his policy has made it 59.68 ( 20th June, 2013 ) a depreciation of 31.80 % ( 45.28 - 59.68 = 14.40 )  in 9 years Or in other words depreciation of  Rs.1.60 per year. The Congress government has still One year in their hand, only God knows or the present Economist PM how much they will depreciate the INR. As per past experience ( 1991 - 1996 ) Rs. should be 96.29 per USD, then only PM will touch his performance, which he did as Finance Minister
2006	45.17
2007	41.30
2008	43.41
2009	48.32
2010	45.75
2011	46.61
2012	53.34
2013	59.68
Average annual currency exchange rate for the Indian Rupee (Rupees per U.S. Dollar) is shown in the table above

Relevance of Social Media in Indian Democracy

Indians have been more social in comparison to other societies of the world. They like to be in touch with their relatives & friends. The Marriage ceremony or any small function attracts a huge gathering. The person who is more social is treated with respect in Indian society.

Indians are so social that in small town / village a person can be recognized by his name or his father / grandfather’s name.

Since 1990, the trend started when lots of youth started migrating to Metros for Job or better opportunity and thus in new city they lost their identity and even their social life. This created an individual, who was neither in touch nor concerned about the problems of his home town. Being away from home town, this generation became inactive in socio – political issues. This new class which emerged had a hidden desire of being social but lacked time & avenues.

Social networking sites gave a platform to these youngsters, where they were able to find their old friends and relatives spread over the globe. This was one of the reasons for drastic growth in number of users in India. Orkut as a social networking site gather momentum, and finally took over by Facebook & Twitter. At present according to Internet & Mobile Association of India, there are 6.80 Crore, Facebook users & 1.8 Crore Twitter account in India. This figure in future will go up as there are 13.70 Crore Internet users in India, which is approx 11% of India total populations.

The first phase of Social networking sites was over and the user were settled, the group started discussing general issues, about the society and our country. The New Channel were pouring news 24X7 in every house in 1990 decades, and thus making people more informative on every issue.  Those people, who were busy in earning through job or self employment, were settled in life and now they started raising their concern about the situation of the country. These people who were working in Private organization were getting better salary, thus making their life easier. They started comparing the service level of private sector with government organization which leads to dissatisfaction towards government.

Being in Metro and working in private organization they started feeling helpless on the situation of country and ineffective governance. The social networking sites become the platform where they started discussing the issue and raise their concerns. This gave the opportunity to outlet their frustration and somewhere mental satisfaction. 

The internet boom also gave direct access to information to the people, who were earlier only relying on News Paper and then to the news channels. This another direct source of Information led to a more conscious citizen, who started evaluating the News shown on News Channels or News paper  and wherever they felt wrong, the group started targeting News Channel too. This lead to birth of a group called “Social Media” and it’s started acting like a watch dog for Media. The journalist who always challenged, system and leaders were now been questioned by this Social Media group, which was uncomfortable to the journalist, many negative reaction by senior journalist can be seen.  The rise of Fifth Pillar of democracy was obvious not welcome by other Four Pillars, but can’t be ignored too.

 Being a democratic country, the Freedom of Speech which was only on streets, can be avoided by Section 144, enters into the gallery of Parliaments. Unwittingly it rang the bells of the highest temple of democracy, and the power was alert, tried to tame down the flow through Section 66A.

The “Social Media” now become tool, a tool to challenge, a tool to propagate. It becomes a platform where a thought of people can come together and implement their thought or protest on issue. The case can be seen in ANNA Andolan & then after Protest against Rape incident of NIRBHAYA. The group was same, who felt that they can contribute to a change, by devoting their weekends. They got a place to protest and a group to strength. There was no binding within the group, except a common cause. Social Media act as a glue to these people who are concern about the society & the country and participation in the democracy, which was only ONCE in five years, changed its cycle.  The participation by common people in democracy is no more time bound but now issue based. An issue which even ignored by Media can become an issue of “WE THE PEOPLE” thus completing the Cycle of democracy.

An infant is born, but it will take time to grow up, it still have to walk on its leg, which will help him to reach to the polling booth. The views, the protest, the courage has to be converted into votes else it will be another “Virtual Tiger”.  The recent example of Parvez Musharraf who was having approx 9 Lakhs Likes on his Facebook page & 22 Thousand followers on twitter, which compelled him to return to Pakistan didn’t turn up on ground. They didn’t come out from the virtual world and reality changed. Mr. Musharraf is house arrest, and not a single protest.

 Considering the population of India, the social media has a long way to go, remember Mahatma Gandhi ji statement "The true India is to be found not in its few cities, but in its seven hundred thousand villages”   

Contribution of Secularism

“Secular”, when we read this word, it seems to be so fascinating. It has become a fashion nowadays of being secular. Even I got attracted towards this word & thus was curios of knowing this word in detail and to understand its contribution to our Indian society.

For better understanding, I first searched the definition of SECULAR and the definition which I find is “Secularity (adjective form secular) is the state of being separate from religion. Despite occasional confusion, secularism is not necessarily synonymous with atheism nor agnosticism, it is instead the belief that religion and authority should be separate”

In nutshell we can say, the state should not take any decision which is influenced by religion.

I searched the history whereas found all religious people and the great persons where closer to religion. The interesting part was of ASHOK – The King of Magadha in 299 BC who became popular because of spreading Buddhism but as per the above definition, he was not secular.

The first king, whom I found as SECULAR was JAICHAND – The ruler of Kannauj during 1192 AD. He supported Muhammad Ghori for defeating PRITHIVIRAJ CHAUHAN, if JAICHAND would have been religious then keeping in mind the religion of PRITHVIRAJ CHAUHAN and religion of Muhammad Ghori he would have not supported Ghori to invade India, but he was a real secular. As per the definition he kept religion and authority separate. This action of secularism opens the gate to invaders and slavery of India started.

Was this the first contribution of Secularism to our Indian society?

Let’s move ahead, the next Secular I found in our history is MANSINGH, the real secular, who gave her sister to marry AKBAR, without a second though about religion, and become Senapati ( The Commander of Akbar army ). He fought against Sri Maharana Pratap, and make sure that Mughal should rule India.

I really want to question why we respect Maharana Pratap, why not MANSINGH – a real secular.

Was this second contribution of Secularism to our country ?

The history is full of seculars and their contribution but let’s come to year 1947.

Have we ever thought in year 1947, on 15th August our country was divided, the question lies between whom the division of this country was ? People will shy to answer this question, whereas let’s go through the fact.

The country which comes into existence was India & Pakistan, India a nation of secular thought people and Pakistan a nation of Islamic thought people.

Thus we can say the division of our country was between Seculars & Islamic people, in year 1947.

Who divided this country ? The answer is crystal clear; the country was divided between seculars and fundamentalist Muslims.

Is not this the actual contribution of secularism to our country ? Seculars can go to any extent.

The cunning seculars intentionally didn’t declared India as secular in year 1947 and nowhere in Preamble, the word SECULARS is mentioned.

Whereas when a son of a Prime Minister in year 1968 married a girl of a religion, which was not the majority religion of this country, a mistake which her mother did, was repeated again by her son. She tried to rectify the mistake and publicly again recreated the scene of marriage as Vedic marriage.

The mistake was done and her son was now a secular, the question was how the majority will correlate himself with her son in future. The constitution, not only the constitution, the preamble ( Preamble is soul of constitution, and can’t be amended ) was amended.

The whole country was converted, and the country become SECULAR, via 42nd amendment act, 1976.

We have to decide do we want to be seculars ? Do we want to use the abusive word “Secular” to ourselves ?

Doesn’t Seculars mean Traitors ?

 

Land Acquisition Bill - Limitation & Salient Features

The Land Acquistion Act 1894, was criticised by everyone, and the government came with a new draft of the Bill, which will be presented in Parliament for debate. I have gone through the draft of the Bill. Please find the details of the Bill.

LIMITATION / DEMERITS OF THE ACT

POINT 1.
The Para 1 (A) doesn’t bind government acquisition to take 80% consent from the land owners before acquiring, this is only when the land will be used by Private Companies.

Inference :

The difference between Government acquisition in normal case & Urgency Clause will be of time.

POINT 2.

The Para (2) states that only the provisions relating to rehabilitation and resettlement shall apply when:-

(a) Private companies purchase or acquire land, equal to or more than one hundred
acres, on their own;

(b) a private company approaches the Appropriate Government for partial acquisition
of an area so identified for a public purpose.

PROVIDED that where a private company seeks Government intervention for partial acquisition then the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements shall be applicable for the entire area identified for acquisition by the private company and not just the area for which the intervention is sought.

Inference :

What about R&R scheme, when Government is acquiring land under Para 1(A) of 1 (a )

There is huge gap between understandings of the law due to Point 2. There is no proper relation between Para 1(A) 1 (b) being read with Para (2) and then reading Para 3.

POINT 3.

The Part II of Para 7 (2) d states that Irrigated Agriculture Land can be acquired as last resort, whereas NO Irrigated Multi-crop land can be acquired.

Inference :

There is no definition of Multi – Crop land in this Act, everyone is aware there are two types of Crop in India – RABI & KHARIF, this become 2 types of crop thus all agriculture land will become multi crop. The only difference is Irrigated or not, thus Non – irrigation Land having multi crop can be acquired.


POINT 4.

Para 3 states that Social impact assessment will be done only when the land acquired is equal to or more than 100 Acres and will not be done in URGENCY Clause.

Inference :

If in one step a 99 acre land is acquired then it will not be covered under Resettlement & rehabilitation scheme, there is no clarity after how many months of days the land adjacent to the acquired land can be acquired. Thus giving a loophole of acquiring land in multiple stages upto 99 acres to avoid R&R scheme.

POINT 5.

Change of Land Use, there is no provision in this act to demoralize transfer of Agriculture Land to Non – Agriculture activity.

POINT 6.

The Definition of INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS in para 2 (n) includes TOURISM, the definition of tourism will be vague and even building HOTELS or Government Guest House can come under this definition.

POINT 7

The Definition of PUBLICC PURPOSE in PARA 2 (y) 4 is again very wide and open for interpretation, the condition of Consent of 80% through Prior informed process is not clear, and no provision is their to check whether the consent is taken under pressure or threat.

POINT 8.

The ACT doesn’t show effort of providing LAND for LAND, the principle seems to be abandon.

The SCHEDULE II Para 2 only states land for land, whereas not able to understand why only for Irrigation Project ? Whereas in case of ST they will get land for land in every project.

There is no clarity that only Canals will be treated as Irrigation Projects or DAMS too, if DAM then the government may use word HYDRO Project which will be a scape route for IRRIGATION project, whereas we know DAMs and Hydro Project are same and multi purpose.

The land for land rehabilitation is less than already exists, this Act provide ONE ACRE per family whereas in Sardar Sarovar Project 2 acres where given.

NATIONAL LAND ACQUISITION AND
REHABILITATION & RESETTLEMENT BILL, 2011


Land Acquisition Provisions will apply when:

1. Government acquires land for its own use, hold and control.

2. Government acquires land with the ultimate purpose to transfer it for the use of private companies for stated public purpose (including PPP projects but other than national highway projects)

3. Government acquires land for immediate and declared use by private companies for public purpose

Note I: Public purpose for 2. & 3. above, once stated, cannot be changed

Note II: Land Acquisition under 2. & 3. above can take place provided 80% of the project affected families give consent to the proposed acquisition.


Scope of LARR, 2011

1. Land for private companies for private purposes.

The Urgency Clause

1. National defense and security purposes

2. R&R needs in the event of emergencies or natural calamities

3. To be exercised in ‘rarest of rare’ cases



Who will be Affected Families ?

Land Owners:

1. Family whose land/other immovable properties have been acquired;

2. Those who are assigned land by the Governments under various schemes;

3. Right holders under the Forest Rights Act,2006

Livelihood Losers:

1. A family whose livelihood is primarily dependent on the land being acquired

2. May or may not own property


Minimum Compensation for Land

A Comprehensive Compensation Package (Schedule I)

1. Market value of the land:

a) the minimum land value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of sale deeds in the area, where the land is situated; or

b) the average of the sale price for similar type of land situated in the village or vicinity, ascertained from fifty per cent of the sale deeds registered during the preceding three years, where higher price has been paid; or whichever is higher:

PROVIDED THAT THE MARKET VALUE SO CALCULATED SHALL BE MULTIPLIED BY THREE IN RURAL AREAS.

2. Value of the assets attached to land:

Building/Trees/Wells/Crop etc as valued by relevant govt. authority;

Total compensation = 1+2

3. Solatium: 100% of total compensation

This implies that in case of urban areas, the award amount would be not less than twice that of the market value determined, whereas in rural areas it would be not less than six times the original market value


Minimum R&R Entitlements

A Comprehensive R&R Package (Schedule II and Draft Bill)

For Land Owners:

1. Subsistence allowance at Rs. 3000 per month per family for 12 months;

2. Rs 2000 per month per family as annuity for 20 years, with appropriate index for inflation;

3. If house is lost, a constructed house of plinth area of 150 sq mts of house site in rural areas or 50 sq mts plinth area in urban area;

4. One acre of land to each family in the command area, if land is acquired for an irrigation project;

5. Rs 50,000 for transportation;

6. Where land is acquired for urbanization, 20% of the developed land will be reserved and offered to land owners, in proportion to their land acquired;

7. Upon every transfer of land within 10 years of the date of acquisition, 20% of the appreciated value shall be shared with the original owner whose land has been acquired;

8. Mandatory employment for one member per affected family or 2 lakh rupees if employment is not offered;

9. Offer of shares up to 25% of the Compensation amount

For Livelihood losers (including landless)

1.Subsistence allowance at Rs. 3000 per month per family for 12 months;

2.Rs 2000 per month per family as annuity for 20 years, with appropriate index for inflation;

3. If home-less, a constructed house (plinth area) on 150 sqmts of house site in rural areas or 50 sqmts in urban area, provided free of cost;

4.A one-time ‘Resettlement Allowance’ of Rs 50,000;

5.Rs 50,000 for transportation;

6.Mandatory employment for one member per affected family or 2 lakh rupees.


Special Provisions for ST’s

1. One acre of land to each ST family in every project;

2. One time financial assistance of Rs 50,000 for ST families;

3. ST families settled outside the district shall be entitled to an additional 25% R&R benefits (and a one time payment of Rs 50,000) to which they are entitled in monetary terms;

4. Payment of one third of the compensation amount at very outset to ST families;

5. Preference in relocation and resettlement in area in same compact block;

6. Free land for community and social gatherings;

7. In case of displacement of 100 or more ST families, a Tribal Displacement Plan is to be prepared:

Continuation of reservation and other benefits from
displaced area to resettlement area for both SCs and STs


25 infrastructural amenities to be provided in the
Resettlement area, including:

• Schools and playgrounds;

• Health Centres;

• Roads and electric connections;

• Assured sources of safe drinking water for each family;

• Panchayat Ghars;

• Anganwadi’s providing child and mother supplemental nutritional services;

• Places of worship and burial and/or cremation ground;

• Village level Post Offices, as appropriate, with facilities for opening saving accounts;

• Fair price shops and seed-cum-fertilizer storage Facilities


Return of Land:

Land returned to original owner if not used in 5 years for the purpose for which it is acquired, one-fourth of the award amount for the land acquired

– Provided government can use land acquired for a department to some other department