The Jharkhand Assembly on Wednesday ratified the ‘Local Resident of Jharkhand Bill’, returned twice since November 2022, without making any changes, days after Governor C P Radhakrishnan sent the Bill for reconsideration citing Constitutional violations. Governor CP Radhakrishnan had returned it after seeking the opinion of the Attorney General, who described some of the provisions as unconstitutional.
Finance Minister Dr Rameshwar Oraon tabled the local policy Bill in the House. Chief Minister Hemant Soren from the government side and Leader of Opposition Amar Bauri from the Opposition side expressed their views on this. After this, Speaker Rabindranath Mahto asked both the parties whether they were in favour of it or against it. After this the Bill was passed by voice vote.
Last year, the Assembly passed the Bill and proposed to include it in the Ninth Schedule. The Attorney General raised some objections to this.
The new Bill, brought by Chief Minister Hemant Soren last year, had stated that it would keep 1932 as the cut-off year for ‘proof of land records’ for defining a local. Under the Bill, any person whose name or ancestors’ name had been recorded in the Khatiyan or survey of 1932 or before will be termed a local. In the case of landless persons, local persons shall be identified by the Gram Sabhas based on their culture, local customs, and tradition, among others.
Discussing the bill related to defining locals in the light of the Governor’s message, Chief Minister Hemant Soren said that 1932 Khatiyan -based local policy is linked to the identity of crores of tribals and indigenous people of this state. “This is their much awaited demand. In accordance with his sentiments and aspirations,” he added.
“…The Governor has sent the Bill back after consulting with the AG, who in turn has flagged two apex court judgments. However, both the order/judgments are not contextual to our 1932 domicile policy. So, no changes are required,” said Soren.
The chief minister said that among the other judgments mentioned by the AG, Indira Sahwney Vs Union of India is related to providing reservation to backward classes. General Manager Southern Railway vs. Rangachar is concerned with providing reservation in promotion to ST/SC.
All India Exploited Employees Union (Railway) vs. Government of India is related to carry forward of the vacancy of posts reserved for ST/SC category in the coming years and State of Kerala Vs. N. M Thomas is concerned with giving promotion to ST/SC category people.
On the contrary, the purpose of the present bill is to define locality and on the basis of that, provide other benefits including employment to the local people. Thus, the order passed in all these cases does not establish any relation with the present bill.
Leader of Opposition Amar Bauri told the Assembly that the aim of the domicile policy was that locals should get grade three or grade four jobs in the government. “The Governor returned the Bill seeking review, and now it seems that the ruling coalition will go ahead and ratify the Bill. It seems that the aim (of Hemant Soren’s government) is not to get jobs, but to get entangled in legal hurdles,” Bauri said.
