Urban Planner Iftikhar Hakeem warns that Section 22 of the new Ease of Doing Business law may let executive approvals override Master Plans, weakening statutory planning, environmental safeguards and disaster resilience in Jammu and Kashmir.
The objective of Ease of Doing Business (EoDB), a law passed by the Jammu and Kashmir assembly last fortnight, is legitimate and necessary. It aims to simplify procedures, reduce delays, promote investment and make approvals transparent. The concern is not with EoDB itself. It is with the manner in which the piece of legislation appears to move beyond procedural facilitation into substantive relaxation of the statutory planning and development control framework that determines where, how much and under what conditions development can occur.
In a geographically fragile and hazard-prone Jammu and Kashmir, the distinction is critical. Development permissions are not merely administrative clearances. They determine where development takes place, its intensity, infrastructure burden and exposure to floods, earthquakes, landslides and ecological risks.
The legislation therefore requires examination not only from the perspective of business facilitation but also for the long term spatial, environmental and disaster resilience of the State.
Master Plan
The most consequential provision is Section 22. It enables the Executive Committee, subject to approval of the Council Chairperson, to relax conditions of a Master Plan. It can then consider an enterprise which is otherwise not in conformity with the Plan. Where there is no Master Plan, enterprise activity may be permitted subject essentially to the Negative List.
This creates a fundamental policy question. Is the Master Plan to remain the statutory framework governing land use? Or is it to become a framework from which individual enterprise proposals may be exempted through executive approval?
A Master Plan is intended to provide certainty, predictability and a spatial basis for coordinated infrastructure, mobility, housing, environment and public facilities. Repeated enterprise specific departures can progressively alter the Plan. They do so without following the statutory process through which the Plan itself is prepared, revised and approved.
This is particularly significant in Jammu and Kashmir. Several Master Plans are already under preparation or revision. The Government is simultaneously investing in GIS based Zonal Development Plans. The current planning process itself recognises the need for development to occur within the statutory Master Plan framework.
Overriding Provision
The concern becomes more serious under Section 22(3). Once approval under Section 22(1) is granted, the competent authority is required to allow the enterprise. It must do so notwithstanding anything contained in the Master Plan, Building Bye laws or any other Act, Rules or Regulations, subject to the Negative List.
This goes substantially beyond simplification of procedure. It potentially converts an enterprise specific relaxation into a general exemption from the applicable planning and development control regime.
The law does not clearly state that only the particular Master Plan condition expressly relaxed under Section 22(1) will cease to apply. Consequently, the provision could be interpreted much more broadly.
This creates a serious legal and planning concern. A power to relax a particular planning condition should not become a power to override the entire planning and building control framework.
Internal Inconsistency
Sections 22 in its entirety require clarification. Section 22(1) permits relaxation of the Master Plan. Section 22(3) potentially overrides the Master Plan and Building Bye laws after approval. Section 22(4) requires strict adherence to the Master Plan where approval under Section 22(1) has not been granted. Section 22(5) requires approvals during preparation of a new Master Plan to continue under the old Master Plan or policies.
The result is a framework in which the Master Plan is simultaneously treated in three ways. It is a binding statutory instrument. It is a framework that may be relaxed by executive decision. It is also a framework whose provisions may potentially be overridden altogether after such approval.
The legislation does not establish objective criteria, planning thresholds, infrastructure capacity tests, environmental safeguards or transparent procedures for determining when such relaxation may be justified.
The concern is therefore not simply drafting ambiguity. It is the possibility that development conformity becomes dependent upon discretionary executive approval rather than a predictable statutory planning process.
Negative List
The Bill places considerable reliance on the concept of a Negative List. A Negative List can identify activities that should not be permitted in particular areas. But it cannot perform the function of a Master Plan.
Planning is not merely about determining what is prohibited. It must also determine where development should occur and what intensity is appropriate. It must determine permissible land use, road and access requirements, and infrastructure capacity. It must address drainage and storm water management, open space requirements, environmental constraints and hazard exposure. It must also ensure compatibility with surrounding uses.
A development may not fall within a Negative List and yet still be inappropriate for a particular location. The reasons could be congestion, inadequate infrastructure, flood vulnerability, ecological sensitivity or incompatibility with the planned land use structure.
Indeed, the existing UBBL framework itself recognises the importance of spatial planning and negative list screening. This includes protection of environmentally and culturally sensitive areas (SO 304 DT 01.12.2025).
Planning Gap
Section 22 also permits enterprise activity in areas without a Master Plan, subject principally to the Negative List. This is problematic because absence of a Master Plan should not mean absence of planning controls. The building byelaws prescribe the preparation of structure plans in the absence of master plans.
Jammu and Kashmir contains environmentally sensitive, flood prone, seismic and mountainous areas. Development decisions there require greater, not lesser, spatial scrutiny.
At a minimum, areas without notified Master Plans should have an interim spatial framework. It should incorporate land use compatibility, infrastructure capacity, hazard risk screening and environmental sensitivity. It should also cover road and access capacity and protection of water bodies, wetlands, agricultural land and other critical ecosystems.
Otherwise, the areas with the weakest planning framework could become the areas experiencing the greatest development pressure.
Digital Planning
There is an important contradiction in policy direction. Jammu and Kashmir is simultaneously moving towards GIS based Master Plans, Zonal Development Plans and automated building permission systems. The amended UBBL provides for Auto Scrutiny. It verifies building and site plans against the Master Plan or Zonal Plan, UBBL, Development Control Regulations and other applicable norms.
This is precisely the right EoDB model. Make compliance faster, transparent, digital and predictable. Do not make compliance optional.
The objective should therefore be to eliminate unnecessary procedural delays. The tools are Auto DCR, single window clearance, time bound approvals, deemed approvals for procedural defaults, standardised checklists and risk based scrutiny. Substantive planning controls should be retained.
Environmental Risks
The implications are particularly serious because urban expansion is occurring in a challenging landscape. It includes flood prone valleys and floodplains, wetlands and water bodies, and steep and unstable slopes. It also includes seismic vulnerability, limited road and infrastructure capacity, agricultural and horticultural land under increasing pressure, and environmentally sensitive mountain ecosystems.
Land use decisions made individually may appear innocuous. But they can have cumulative impacts. These include increased impervious surfaces, storm water runoff, traffic generation, pressure on drainage systems, and loss of open spaces and fragmentation of ecological systems.
EoDB should therefore incorporate risk based spatial screening. It should not treat environmental and disaster risk considerations as external to enterprise facilitation.
Institutional Dilution
The Bill also raises an institutional question. Master Plans are prepared through specialised planning institutions, technical studies, public consultation and statutory approval. Section 22 potentially enables executive committees to make decisions with consequences for the spatial structure of towns and regions.
This risks creating a parallel route for land use decisions outside the established planning institutions and procedures.
Such decisions should at least require the concurrence or technical assessment of the competent planning authority. This applies particularly where they involve change of land use or significant increase in development intensity. It also applies to departure from zoning, infrastructure intensive uses, environmentally sensitive locations and areas exposed to natural hazards.
EoDB Models
A review of comparable EoDB legislation in Arunachal Pradesh, Puducherry, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Telangana shows a clear pattern. The predominant legislative approach is to simplify, digitise and time bind the delivery of statutory approvals. This includes single window mechanisms, self-certification and deemed approvals. Importantly, where deemed approvals are provided, Karnataka, Telangana and Puducherry expressly preserve compliance with applicable Acts, Master Plans, land use requirements and building bye laws.
Section 22 of the Jammu and Kashmir EoDB Bill is materially different. It does not merely deem an approval after administrative delay. It permits an executive committee to relax a notified Master Plan. It treats such approval as effecting a change of land use. It thereafter requires the competent authority to permit the enterprise notwithstanding the Master Plan, Building Bye laws and other applicable laws. This represents a substantive alteration of the planning regime rather than merely procedural facilitation.
The legislation needs reconsideration. EoDB should operate through time bound, transparent and technology enabled processing of approvals. It should preserve the Master Plan, statutory land use controls, Building Bye laws and other substantive development regulations.
A particularly strong point emerges from the comparison with other jurisdictions: the experience of Karnataka and Puducherry directly challenges the claim that Section 22 is indispensable to achieving EoDB. Both demonstrate that land-use and building approvals can be made time-bound, digitally processed and even subject to deemed approval, without diluting the underlying statutory planning framework. The lesson is clear: procedural efficiency does not require substantive deregulation. Jammu and Kashmir can streamline approvals while retaining the integrity of its Master Plans, land-use controls and development regulations.
Amendments Required
The EoDB law has been welcomed by all. They should now support procedural reform while insisting that substantive planning safeguards remain intact. The Bill should be reconsidered to ensure ten things.
First, EoDB should facilitate procedures, not bypass statutory plans. Second, Section 22(1) should be restricted to clearly defined and exceptional circumstances with objective criteria. Third, any relaxation should be limited to the specific provision expressly relaxed.
Fourth, Section 22(3) should be redrafted so that it cannot be interpreted as a blanket override of Master Plans, UBBL or other planning regulations. Fifth, land use change should follow the prescribed statutory planning process, rather than occurring merely through enterprise approval.
Sixth, areas without Master Plans should be brought under an interim spatial and risk framework. Seventh, all major proposals should be subjected to infrastructure capacity, environmental and disaster risk screening. Eighth, development approvals during preparation of a new Master Plan should not pre-empt or frustrate the emerging plan.
Ninth, the planning authority and qualified technical professionals should have a defined role in assessing departures from statutory plans. Tenth, the Bill should provide for transparency, reasons for decisions, GIS based screening and public disclosure of approved relaxations.
(Urban Planner and Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Specialist, the author was Chief Town Planner, Jammu and Kashmir)
