Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

          On the point of Appellate jurisdiction, I fully agree. But regarding other apprehensions, which we had expressed, are still there.
          The first apprehension is the retrospective effect of the provisions of the Amendment Bill.  It was well elaborately discussed in the House in the month of March when the House had taken up consideration of the Bill and at the time of passing.   The   Enemy Property Act, 1968 was enacted for regulating or dealing with the enemy property in our country.  But this is giving retrospective effect.  This Act of 1968 allows the   enemy to transfer or sell enemy property except in two cases.  Suppose, if the sale or transfer of the property is against the public interest, then it is not allowable.  If it is to invade from the vesting of the property of the custodian of the property, then it is not allowable. Otherwise, sale as well as transfer of the property is allowable according to the original Act of 1968.
          Sir,  this legally also is not sustainable. It is   absolutely against article 14 of the Constitution of India because article 14 of the Constitution says equality of law to all citizens of the country. Article 14 is also giving a protection from the actions of the Government.  If that be the case, it is arbitrary and unreasonable as it   takes away the ownership right of persons who have bought and sold enemy property in a bona fide manner.
          The next point   is about the structural change in the definition of enemy. The structural change in the definition of enemy is also very fatal because according to the new amendment, that is, (i) the  legal heirs and the successors are also enemies even if they are citizens of India or citizens of other country, which is not an enemy country; and (ii) also the nationals of an enemy country who subsequently changed to Indian nationality, even then will come within the purview of enemy.   That means, you have widened the scope of enemy. That will also be having a retrospective effect.  So, this also has the ramifications. How is the Government going to address these issues?

          It is unfortunate that Members of the Opposition hardly paid any attention to recognize seriousness and timely nature of the issue and walked out of the House despite being acceptance of many recommendations of the Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha.

          It should be recognised that this Bill expands the definition of word ‘enemy’ by including the legal heirs settled in India and those individuals of enemy country who changed their nationality to another country. In my view, this expansion is very necessary to sort out nationality issues and enmity characteristics. Here, in this aspect, I would like to suggest the Government care must be taken to protect legal heirs of enemy countries who settled in India and gradually became citizens of India. Their claims need to be listened with more attention as restrictions on claims of even Indian citizens contradicts Fundamental Rights of ‘Right to Equality’ under Article 14 of the Constitution. Of course, care must be taken to deeply analyze credentials of these properties and claimed owners before making rules and regulations under the Act.

          Presently, at stake are 2,186 properties worth crores of rupees spread across the country, which have been declared as enemy properties as their original owners are supposed to have migrated to Pakistan.

          It is a welcome step to sell the enemy properties whose owners have either migrated to Pakistan or China or do not exist and the income generated by selling such property be deposited to the Consolidated Fund of India.  These properties that have been identified across India are estimated to be valued at more than Rs. One lakh crore.  The Government should use the amount for the welfare of the poor people, especially the farmers who are debt-ridden.