Introduction

The question of Law Reforms has been considered from time to time since the formation of the State of Kerala in 1956. In the first few years after the States’ reorganization, the laws which needed urgent unification were attended to. By 1963, the need for constituting a Law Commission was recognized. However it was only in 1966 that a Law Commission was actually constituted. (G.O. (MS) No.5/66/Law dated 14.1.1966). The terms of reference of the Commission included the examination of all laws in force in the State in detail and their consolidation, amendment and simplification. The objectives of the Commission as stated in the Government order were quite wide. However, since the tenure of the Commission was for a period of two years, only limited amount of work was done. No Law Commission was appointed in the State afterwards.

The Administrative Reforms Committee, (ARC), appointed by the Government headed by Shri E.K. Nayanar from 1996, considered this question in its Seventh Report presented in August 2000. The Committee observed, “the present position as far as the Administrative Reforms Committee could assess it indicates that the issues sought to be tackled with the appointment of the Law Commission remain, to this day, largely unchanged . . . . . .” The Administrative Reforms Committee further observed as follows:-

“For historical and other reasons, our Statute Book has become an exceedingly complex one. The number of laws is too large. New enactments increase this number every year. No serious exercise has been done to identify and repeal laws that have lost their relevance. There are instances where for the same subject different laws apply to different parts of the State. This was unavoidable as the State was formed in 1956 from three different political units of the earlier period – the independent princely states of Travancore and Cochin and the Malabar district and Kazaragod Taluk of South Canara district of the formerly British Ruled Madras Presidency. But the same situation has continued for too long. For some of the laws, timely codification of rules has not been done and for some others timely modifications have not been attempted either. Some of the old laws in force appear to be not quite consistent with unanimously accepted goals of State policy. Some others which do address those goals seem to suffer from elements of half heartedness and adhocism.”

After considering the experience of the Law Commission at the Centre and the attempts at Law Reforms in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the ARC recommended the constitution of a State Law Commission with one of the retired Chief Justices functioning in Thiruvananthapuram heading such bodies like Lok Ayukta or Human Rights Commission as Chairman, two retired High Court Judges functioning in the City as Chairpersons of other bodies and a certain number of ex-officio and part-time members. A tenure of five years and the following terms of reference were indicated for the Commission:

“(a) To identify laws which are no longer needed or relevant and which are liable to be repealed.

(b) To identify laws which are not in harmony with the changing times or modern times and which need change.

(c) To identify laws which require changes or amendments in the normal course and to make suggestions for their amendment.

(d) To consider in a wider perspective the suggestions for revision/amendment suggested by Supreme Court or High Court or by Expert Groups in various Departments with a view to co-ordinate and harmonise them.

(e) To consider reference made to it by Departments in respect of legislation having bearing on the working of more than one Department.

(f) To examine the existing laws in the light of generally accepted objectives of State Policy like social and economic justice to the weaker sections of society and to suggest such legislation as might be necessary to implement those policies.

(g) To revise the State Acts and Rules framed under various Acts of general importance so as to simplify them by consolidation of amendments or otherwise and to remove anomalies and ambiguities.

(h) To consider and to convey to the Government its views on any other subject relating to laws and allied matters that may be referred to it.

These are only suggestions arising from the Administrative Reforms Committee’s own study of this matter. These terms could be suitably modified or widened by Government in consultation with eminent jurists.”

In the context of the preparation of the Tenth Five Year Plan which according to the approach paper, was also to be a Reform Plan and in the light of the UDF Manifesto for the general elections in 2001 and the declared policies of the present Government to undertake major reforms in order to accelerate growth, increase investment and employment and improve the quality of social services that had been established in the State over the last several decades (but which had started deteriorating in recent years) and to improve the quality of governance, the question of constituting a Law Commission was raised before the full Planning Board at its third meeting held on 8th October, 2001. It was felt after detailed discussions that a Commission of the kind recommended by the ARC with a number of persons from outside working part-time and on a voluntary basis would not help the Government to achieve the objective and that what was needed was quick action. Since a number of proposals and suggestions were already under consideration in the Government and were at various stages and a number of others have been recently received, it was felt that it would be much more useful if an internal committee headed by the Law Minister could examine all these proposals and suggestions, as well as others, as expeditiously as possible and make recommendations to the Government.

This view was accepted by the State Government and the Law Reforms Committee was constituted by G.O. (Rt) No.1054/2001/Law dated 26th November, 2001. The composition of the Committee and the terms of reference are given in the Government order appended to this Chapter. No separate staff was sanctioned for the Committee.

Introduction
The question of Law Reforms has been considered from time to time since the formation of the State of Kerala in 1956. In the first few years after the States’ reorganization, the laws which needed urgent unification were attended to. By 1963, the need for constituting a Law Commission was recognized. However it was only in 1966 that a Law Commission was actually constituted. (G.O. (MS) No.5/66/Law dated 14.1.1966). The terms of reference of the Commission included the examination of all laws in force in the State in detail and their consolidation, amendment and simplification. The objectives of the Commission as stated in the Government order were quite wide. However, since the tenure of the Commission was for a period of two years, only limited amount of work was done. No Law Commission was appointed in the State afterwards.

The Administrative Reforms Committee, (ARC), appointed by the Government headed by Shri E.K. Nayanar from 1996, considered this question in its Seventh Report presented in August 2000. The Committee observed, “the present position as far as the Administrative Reforms Committee could assess it indicates that the issues sought to be tackled with the appointment of the Law Commission remain, to this day, largely unchanged . . . . . .” The Administrative Reforms Committee further observed as follows:-

“For historical and other reasons, our Statute Book has become an exceedingly complex one. The number of laws is too large. New enactments increase this number every year. No serious exercise has been done to identify and repeal laws that have lost their relevance. There are instances where for the same subject different laws apply to different parts of the State. This was unavoidable as the State was formed in 1956 from three different political units of the earlier period – the independent princely states of Travancore and Cochin and the Malabar district and Kazaragod Taluk of South Canara district of the formerly British Ruled Madras Presidency. But the same situation has continued for too long. For some of the laws, timely codification of rules has not been done and for some others timely modifications have not been attempted either. Some of the old laws in force appear to be not quite consistent with unanimously accepted goals of State policy. Some others which do address those goals seem to suffer from elements of half heartedness and adhocism.”

After considering the experience of the Law Commission at the Centre and the attempts at Law Reforms in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the ARC recommended the constitution of a State Law Commission with one of the retired Chief Justices functioning in Thiruvananthapuram heading such bodies like Lok Ayukta or Human Rights Commission as Chairman, two retired High Court Judges functioning in the City as Chairpersons of other bodies and a certain number of ex-officio and part-time members. A tenure of five years and the following terms of reference were indicated for the Commission:

“(a) To identify laws which are no longer needed or relevant and which are liable to be repealed.

(b) To identify laws which are not in harmony with the changing times or modern times and which need change.

(c) To identify laws which require changes or amendments in the normal course and to make suggestions for their amendment.

(d) To consider in a wider perspective the suggestions for revision/amendment suggested by Supreme Court or High Court or by Expert Groups in various Departments with a view to co-ordinate and harmonise them.

(e) To consider reference made to it by Departments in respect of legislation having bearing on the working of more than one Department.

(f) To examine the existing laws in the light of generally accepted objectives of State Policy like social and economic justice to the weaker sections of society and to suggest such legislation as might be necessary to implement those policies.

(g) To revise the State Acts and Rules framed under various Acts of general importance so as to simplify them by consolidation of amendments or otherwise and to remove anomalies and ambiguities.

(h) To consider and to convey to the Government its views on any other subject relating to laws and allied matters that may be referred to it.

These are only suggestions arising from the Administrative Reforms Committee’s own study of this matter. These terms could be suitably modified or widened by Government in consultation with eminent jurists.”

In the context of the preparation of the Tenth Five Year Plan which according to the approach paper, was also to be a Reform Plan and in the light of the UDF Manifesto for the general elections in 2001 and the declared policies of the present Government to undertake major reforms in order to accelerate growth, increase investment and employment and improve the quality of social services that had been established in the State over the last several decades (but which had started deteriorating in recent years) and to improve the quality of governance, the question of constituting a Law Commission was raised before the full Planning Board at its third meeting held on 8th October, 2001. It was felt after detailed discussions that a Commission of the kind recommended by the ARC with a number of persons from outside working part-time and on a voluntary basis would not help the Government to achieve the objective and that what was needed was quick action. Since a number of proposals and suggestions were already under consideration in the Government and were at various stages and a number of others have been recently received, it was felt that it would be much more useful if an internal committee headed by the Law Minister could examine all these proposals and suggestions, as well as others, as expeditiously as possible and make recommendations to the Government.

This view was accepted by the State Government and the Law Reforms Committee was constituted by G.O. (Rt) No.1054/2001/Law dated 26th November, 2001. The composition of the Committee and the terms of reference are given in the Government order appended to this Chapter. No separate staff was sanctioned for the Committee.

The Committee adopted the following method of work:

• A list of State Laws in force was already available with the Law Department. The Law Department was requested to prepare a list of obsolete laws, which were no longer relevant, and which could be repealed.
• As regards laws to be unified as well as new laws to be framed in accordance with the policies of the Government, an exercise was undertaken to locate all the existing drafts and proposals in the Departments of the Secretariat.
• Fresh proposals were also invited from the Departments. The Chairman and members also proposed subjects to be considered.
• After the initial set of materials was obtained, the Committee started its work in January 2002.
• Over the last 10 months the Committee has held nineteen sittings to consider the proposals in detail. It had discussions with Ministers and Secretaries to Government in one or two sittings. In addition to the formal sittings the Chairman and individual members of the Committee, as well as officers assisting the Committee, had a number of discussions with the concerned Secretaries to Government and other officers as well as representatives of organizations like the Small Industries Association, which had sent memoranda to the Committee. There were thus many interactions.
• The list of 84 obsolete laws considered fit for repeal by the Committee was published in 21.5.2002 and was also sent to legal experts, Bar Associations and members of the Legislature for comments, if any.
  
  
  

During the working of the Committee a number of reform measures had to be attended to on an urgent basis. Though the Committee did not as a whole formally examine them and make recommendations, the Chairman and one or more members of the Committee were involved in the preparation and finalization of these measures in the field of finance, labour, power and other matters. A list of such measures and the present state of their finalisation/ enactment is given in the statement appended to this Chapter.

In this volume, the Committee has finalised its first Report for presentation to the Government for urgent consideration. The proposals made in this Report are those of the Committee as prepared by it after due consideration and have not been referred to the departments for concurrence. In this Report itself some of the measures that require examination and which will be considered in the second report of the Committee are indicated. A great deal more work needs to be done in this field and the Committee hopes to accomplish this task in the subsequent Reports that will be presented by it in the coming months.

The committee did not appoint any additional staff for its work nor did it incur any financial expenditure on account of its work.

Acknowledgements

The Committee wishes to record its gratefulness to the Honourable Ministers and Secretaries to Government and other senior officers with whom it interacted, for their co-operation and valuable suggestions and for the readiness with which any matter or response was given when asked for by the Committee. All the officers of the Law Department attended to the work of the Committee in addition to their normal duties and it was only in October, 2002 that a special cell was formed from out of the existing staff of the Law Department. The Committee wishes to record its thankfulness for the assistance given, in particular, by Shri D. Sarat Chandran (Former Special Secretary for Law and now Addl. P.S. to Minister for Law), Smt. P.R. Geetha, Additional Secretary, Smt. Sheela R. Chandran, Under Secretary, Shri S. Suresh Chandran, Section Officer and Shri.Biju Varghese Erumala, and Shri L.Shaji Kumar, Legal Assistants. Drafts of legislation go through different stages of finalisation and that involves much typing work. The personal staff of the Chairman and members and the typists attached to the Committee attended to this work cheerfully and the final typing of the entire report was done by. Shri V.Gopalakrishnan, office of the Minister for Revenue and Law. We are grateful to all of them.

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

Abstract
LAW (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT

G.O. (Rt.) No.1054/2001/Law Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 26.11.2001
Read: - D.O. Lr, No.4523/PC/2001/SPB dt. 18.10.2001 of the Member Secretary, State Planning Board.

Introduction
The question of Law Reforms has been considered from time to time since the formation of the State of Kerala in 1956. In the first few years after the States’ reorganization, the laws which needed urgent unification were attended to. By 1963, the need for constituting a Law Commission was recognized. However it was only in 1966 that a Law Commission was actually constituted. (G.O. (MS) No.5/66/Law dated 14.1.1966). The terms of reference of the Commission included the examination of all laws in force in the State in detail and their consolidation, amendment and simplification. The objectives of the Commission as stated in the Government order were quite wide. However, since the tenure of the Commission was for a period of two years, only limited amount of work was done. No Law Commission was appointed in the State afterwards.

The Administrative Reforms Committee, (ARC), appointed by the Government headed by Shri E.K. Nayanar from 1996, considered this question in its Seventh Report presented in August 2000. The Committee observed, “the present position as far as the Administrative Reforms Committee could assess it indicates that the issues sought to be tackled with the appointment of the Law Commission remain, to this day, largely unchanged . . . . . .” The Administrative Reforms Committee further observed as follows:-

“For historical and other reasons, our Statute Book has become an exceedingly complex one. The number of laws is too large. New enactments increase this number every year. No serious exercise has been done to identify and repeal laws that have lost their relevance. There are instances where for the same subject different laws apply to different parts of the State. This was unavoidable as the State was formed in 1956 from three different political units of the earlier period – the independent princely states of Travancore and Cochin and the Malabar district and Kazaragod Taluk of South Canara district of the formerly British Ruled Madras Presidency. But the same situation has continued for too long. For some of the laws, timely codification of rules has not been done and for some others timely modifications have not been attempted either. Some of the old laws in force appear to be not quite consistent with unanimously accepted goals of State policy. Some others which do address those goals seem to suffer from elements of half heartedness and adhocism.”

After considering the experience of the Law Commission at the Centre and the attempts at Law Reforms in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the ARC recommended the constitution of a State Law Commission with one of the retired Chief Justices functioning in Thiruvananthapuram heading such bodies like Lok Ayukta or Human Rights Commission as Chairman, two retired High Court Judges functioning in the City as Chairpersons of other bodies and a certain number of ex-officio and part-time members. A tenure of five years and the following terms of reference were indicated for the Commission:

“(a) To identify laws which are no longer needed or relevant and which are liable to be repealed.

(b) To identify laws which are not in harmony with the changing times or modern times and which need change.

(c) To identify laws which require changes or amendments in the normal course and to make suggestions for their amendment.

(d) To consider in a wider perspective the suggestions for revision/amendment suggested by Supreme Court or High Court or by Expert Groups in various Departments with a view to co-ordinate and harmonise them.

(e) To consider reference made to it by Departments in respect of legislation having bearing on the working of more than one Department.

(f) To examine the existing laws in the light of generally accepted objectives of State Policy like social and economic justice to the weaker sections of society and to suggest such legislation as might be necessary to implement those policies.

(g) To revise the State Acts and Rules framed under various Acts of general importance so as to simplify them by consolidation of amendments or otherwise and to remove anomalies and ambiguities.

(h) To consider and to convey to the Government its views on any other subject relating to laws and allied matters that may be referred to it.

These are only suggestions arising from the Administrative Reforms Committee’s own study of this matter. These terms could be suitably modified or widened by Government in consultation with eminent jurists.”

In the context of the preparation of the Tenth Five Year Plan which according to the approach paper, was also to be a Reform Plan and in the light of the UDF Manifesto for the general elections in 2001 and the declared policies of the present Government to undertake major reforms in order to accelerate growth, increase investment and employment and improve the quality of social services that had been established in the State over the last several decades (but which had started deteriorating in recent years) and to improve the quality of governance, the question of constituting a Law Commission was raised before the full Planning Board at its third meeting held on 8th October, 2001. It was felt after detailed discussions that a Commission of the kind recommended by the ARC with a number of persons from outside working part-time and on a voluntary basis would not help the Government to achieve the objective and that what was needed was quick action. Since a number of proposals and suggestions were already under consideration in the Government and were at various stages and a number of others have been recently received, it was felt that it would be much more useful if an internal committee headed by the Law Minister could examine all these proposals and suggestions, as well as others, as expeditiously as possible and make recommendations to the Government.

This view was accepted by the State Government and the Law Reforms Committee was constituted by G.O. (Rt) No.1054/2001/Law dated 26th November, 2001. The composition of the Committee and the terms of reference are given in the Government order appended to this Chapter. No separate staff was sanctioned for the Committee.

The Committee adopted the following method of work:

• A list of State Laws in force was already available with the Law Department. The Law Department was requested to prepare a list of obsolete laws, which were no longer relevant, and which could be repealed.
• As regards laws to be unified as well as new laws to be framed in accordance with the policies of the Government, an exercise was undertaken to locate all the existing drafts and proposals in the Departments of the Secretariat.
• Fresh proposals were also invited from the Departments. The Chairman and members also proposed subjects to be considered.
• After the initial set of materials was obtained, the Committee started its work in January 2002.
• Over the last 10 months the Committee has held nineteen sittings to consider the proposals in detail. It had discussions with Ministers and Secretaries to Government in one or two sittings. In addition to the formal sittings the Chairman and individual members of the Committee, as well as officers assisting the Committee, had a number of discussions with the concerned Secretaries to Government and other officers as well as representatives of organizations like the Small Industries Association, which had sent memoranda to the Committee. There were thus many interactions.
• The list of 84 obsolete laws considered fit for repeal by the Committee was published in 21.5.2002 and was also sent to legal experts, Bar Associations and members of the Legislature for comments, if any.

During the working of the Committee a number of reform measures had to be attended to on an urgent basis. Though the Committee did not as a whole formally examine them and make recommendations, the Chairman and one or more members of the Committee were involved in the preparation and finalization of these measures in the field of finance, labour, power and other matters. A list of such measures and the present state of their finalisation/ enactment is given in the statement appended to this Chapter.

In this volume, the Committee has finalised its first Report for presentation to the Government for urgent consideration. The proposals made in this Report are those of the Committee as prepared by it after due consideration and have not been referred to the departments for concurrence. In this Report itself some of the measures that require examination and which will be considered in the second report of the Committee are indicated. A great deal more work needs to be done in this field and the Committee hopes to accomplish this task in the subsequent Reports that will be presented by it in the coming months.

The committee did not appoint any additional staff for its work nor did it incur any financial expenditure on account of its work.

Acknowledgements

The Committee wishes to record its gratefulness to the Honourable Ministers and Secretaries to Government and other senior officers with whom it interacted, for their co-operation and valuable suggestions and for the readiness with which any matter or response was given when asked for by the Committee. All the officers of the Law Department attended to the work of the Committee in addition to their normal duties and it was only in October, 2002 that a special cell was formed from out of the existing staff of the Law Department. The Committee wishes to record its thankfulness for the assistance given, in particular, by Shri D. Sarat Chandran (Former Special Secretary for Law and now Addl. P.S. to Minister for Law), Smt. P.R. Geetha, Additional Secretary, Smt. Sheela R. Chandran, Under Secretary, Shri S. Suresh Chandran, Section Officer and Shri.Biju Varghese Erumala, and Shri L.Shaji Kumar, Legal Assistants. Drafts of legislation go through different stages of finalisation and that involves much typing work. The personal staff of the Chairman and members and the typists attached to the Committee attended to this work cheerfully and the final typing of the entire report was done by. Shri V.Gopalakrishnan, office of the Minister for Revenue and Law. We are grateful to all of them.

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Abstract
LAW (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT

G.O. (Rt.) No.1054/2001/Law Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 26.11.2001
Read: - D.O. Lr, No.4523/PC/2001/SPB dt. 18.10.2001 of the Member Secretary, State Planning Board.

O R D E R
In the meeting of the State Planning Board held on 8.10.2001, it was decided to set up a Law Reforms Committee for Kerala for modernizing laws in tune with liberalization and decentralization. Accordingly Government are pleased to constitute the Law Reforms Committee for the State consisting of the,

1. Minister (Revenue & Law) : Chairman.

2. Vice Chairman, State Planning Board : Member.

3. Law Secretary. : Member.

2. The Committee is empowered to hold discussions with individual Departments and call for any details from any Departments in connection with its works. All Secretaries to Government would extent maximum co-operation to the Committee with a view to facilitate the work of the Committee.

3. The Committee shall perform the following tasks:

(a) to identify laws which are no longer needed or relevant and which are liable to be replaced.

(b) to identify laws which are not in harmony with the changing time or modern times and which need change.

(c) to identify laws which require changes or amendments in the normal course and to make suggestions for their amendment.

(d) to consider in a wider perspective the suggestions for revision / amendment suggested by Supreme Court or High Court by Expert Groups in various Departments with a view to co-ordinating and harmonizing them.

(e) to consider reference made to it by Departments in respect of legislations having bearing on the working of more than one Department.

(f) to examine the existing laws in the light of generally accepted objectives of State Policy like social and economic justice to the weaker sections of society and to suggest such legislation as might be necessary to implement those policies.

(g) to revise the State Acts and Rules framed under various Acts of general importance so as to simplify them by consolidation of amendments or otherwise and to remove anomalies and ambiguities.

(h) to consider any other matters referred to by Government.

The Committee would prioritize its recommendations by 31.12.2001.

By Order of the Governor,

V. RAMKUMAR.,

Law Secretary.

PROGRESS OF REFORM LAWS DURING LAST ONE YEAR