SRINAGAR: The Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC), Jammu and Kashmir, has called for safeguards in the new Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) law, warning that efforts to accelerate investment and remove bureaucratic hurdles must not weaken statutory planning controls, building safety, environmental protection and educational standards.
Welcoming the ongoing public debate on the legislation, the group said the exercise should help strike a balance between facilitating business and protecting Jammu and Kashmir’s fragile ecology, which it described as being of existential importance to the region’s population.
In its first response to the issues emerging from the debate, the GCC acknowledged that bureaucratic delays, overlapping permissions and arbitrary discretion had burdened entrepreneurs. It supported time-bound approvals, digital single-window systems, transparent procedures and the removal of genuinely redundant clearances, but questioned whether these objectives could be achieved without diluting statutory safeguards.
The group identified Section 22 as a key provision requiring particular scrutiny. It said Section 22(1) provides for relaxation of Master Plan conditions, Section 22(2) provides for deemed change of land use following approval, while Section 22(3) appears to require permission for an enterprise notwithstanding the Master Plan, building bye-laws and other applicable laws, subject to the Negative List.
The GCC said Section 30(2) must be read alongside Section 22 to establish the full scope of the law’s overriding effect. It called for an express clarification on whether any override would be confined to the specific relaxation lawfully approved, and urged the government to ensure that substantive planning controls were not displaced by implication.
While welcoming the protection afforded under Section 30(4) to specified environmental laws, the group sought comparable clarity for urban and regional planning legislation, Master Plans, development-control regulations and building-safety provisions.
“Environmental protection and planned urban development are complementary safeguards. Protecting one while leaving the other open to displacement would create an avoidable regulatory imbalance,” the statement said.
The group also cautioned that the Negative List could not substitute for spatial planning. It argued that activities not expressly prohibited could become permissible through facilitation mechanisms under Schedules III and IV, even where a particular location lacked adequate road access, drainage, sewerage, utilities or environmental capacity.
An activity that was not prohibited in itself, the GCC said, might nevertheless be unsuitable at a particular site. It called for enforceable land-use controls and infrastructure-capacity assessments to remain integral to the approval process.
The proposed exemption from prior permission for residential buildings up to 24 metres under Schedule III was another area of concern. The group said the government should clarify whether the exemption expressly preserved requirements relating to floor area ratio (FAR), ground coverage, setbacks, access, road width, fire and life safety, and infrastructure capacity.
It stressed that exemption from prior permission should not be interpreted as exemption from substantive planning and building standards.
The GCC also sought clear safeguards for the proposed moratorium on inspections by competent authorities. It said the provision should not prevent action when violations were reported or discovered, including after construction had been completed.
The law, it said, should specify exceptions to the moratorium, identify the authorities empowered to inspect, establish procedures for handling complaints and provide effective remedies against unauthorised or unsafe construction.
“Facilitation must not create immunity from enforcement or leave unlawful construction without an effective remedy,” the group said, adding that removing selected No Objection Certificates should not extinguish the substantive requirements those clearances were intended to verify.
School Safety
School education was identified as a particular area requiring clarification. The GCC questioned how the EoDB framework would operate alongside the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, a central legislation extended to Jammu and Kashmir in 2019.
It said any further intervention must also be reconciled with the Jammu and Kashmir School Education Act, 2002, and the rules framed under it, while being assessed against the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The group referred to the NEP’s emphasis on the physical and functional infrastructure of schools and its provision for an independent State School Standards Authority in each state and Union Territory to ensure compliance with minimum standards relating to safety, basic infrastructure, teachers, financial probity and governance.
Streamlined approvals, it said, must not undermine these requirements or allow educational institutions to operate without infrastructure commensurate with their enrolment.
The government should clarify how these statutory and policy standards would be preserved under the EoDB framework, the group said, calling for clear identification of responsible authorities, verification procedures, technical scrutiny and accountability mechanisms.
Industrial Allotments
The GCC also sought a clear and enforceable framework for allotment and use of plots in industrial parks. It called for transparent eligibility criteria, time-bound implementation, safeguards against speculative holding and unauthorised changes of use, and obligations to establish and operate the approved industrial activity.
Such measures, it said, were necessary to ensure that the policy promoted genuine industrial development, investment and employment rather than merely facilitating the allotment of land.
Employment generation was a central justification for easing investment procedures, the group said, urging the government to clarify how the law would promote opportunities for local residents. It suggested that lawful and transparent local recruitment or training commitments could be incorporated into industrial-park allotments and other appropriate incentives, consistent with applicable law.
The statement also raised concerns about provisions allowing professionals registered or empanelled outside Jammu and Kashmir to operate without local registration. While acknowledging that mutual recognition could reduce unnecessary barriers, the GCC said it should be accompanied by clear qualification standards, professional accountability, insurance where appropriate, and enforceable disciplinary and grievance mechanisms within the Union Territory.
Eight Measures
The group urged the government to consider eight measures in the larger public interest: clarify the relationship between Sections 22 and 30 and preserve applicable planning laws and development-control standards; ensure that the Negative List and Schedules III and IV do not displace location-specific planning, infrastructure assessments or environmental safeguards; and clarify the 24-metre residential-building exemption while retaining enforceable building and safety requirements.
It also called for a clearly defined inspection moratorium with exceptions for complaints and suspected violations, effective post-construction enforcement against unauthorised or unsafe development, and express protection for the requirements of the Right to Education Act, the J&K School Education Act and relevant NEP 2020 standards.
The remaining proposals include transparent rules governing industrial-plot allotment, approved land use and employment outcomes; clear qualification and accountability standards for professionals recognised through registration or empanelment elsewhere; and publication of departmental responsibilities, technical capacity, verification procedures and enforcement mechanisms, with public consultation wherever required by law.
The GCC further cautioned that rules framed under the Act could neither exceed nor contradict the parent legislation. If the Act mandated that enterprises be allowed notwithstanding Master Plans or regulatory delays, subject to the Negative List and other express statutory conditions, subordinate rules could not introduce restrictions inconsistent with that mandate.
Conversely, the group said facilitation provisions should not be interpreted as silently extinguishing substantive planning and safety requirements. The distinction between removing procedural delays and displacing statutory development controls, it argued, must be established in the Act itself rather than left entirely to subsequent rules.
Acknowledging deficiencies in existing Master Plans and their enforcement, the group said the remedy lay in updating plans, strengthening institutions, eliminating arbitrary procedures and improving compliance, rather than making statutory planning optional. Any exceptional relaxation, it added, should be based on objective criteria, recorded reasons, technical assessment and transparent accountability.
“The choice before Jammu and Kashmir is not between entrepreneurship and ecology, or between Ease of Doing Business and Ease of Living. It is between arbitrary administration and transparent, accountable regulation,” the statement said.
The GCC said procedures should be simplified, unnecessary delays eliminated and responsible enterprise facilitated without compromising statutory planning, educational standards, public safety or public welfare. Sustainable investment, it added, required not only speed in the present but also regulatory certainty, resilient infrastructure and well-planned cities and towns in the future.
