For the last few days, lawyers across the State of Gujarat have been up in arms against the Rent Control Bill, 2026 (here “up in arms” is used metaphorically, lest the State government rely on this post to slam sedition and UAPA cases against the protesting lawyers or, much worse, the author).

Although this post briefly addresses the causes of concern in the proposed Bill, the main aim of this post is to address the assurance advanced by the Advocate General (AG) to the effect that the Bill will never see the light of the day. This post explores, through the assurance advanced by the AG, the reality of the relationship between the State government and the Governor - a topic which has received considerable engagement from constitutional lawyers as well as courts in the recent past.

The protest is directed against the Rent Control Bill, 2026, which seeks to take away the jurisdiction of small causes courts to decide rent disputes and instead vests the revenue authorities such as mamlatdar or deputy collector with the jurisdiction to decide these disputes. There are three main objections to this Bill: one constitutional, one practical and one professional.

The constitutional objection is based on the settled principle of separation of powers. The power to decide disputes is a judicial function which cannot be vested in a purely administrative authorities which are part of the executive wing of the State. Recall the long line of judgments by the Supreme Court that require even tribunals - which are quasi-judicial bodies - to have a judicial member along with a technical member in order to ensure proper administration of justice. There is no reason whatsoever to depart from that position in this case and vest a judicial, or even a quasi-judicial authority, in an executive office.

The second and practical objection is on the basis that the offices of mamlatdars and deputy collectors are already overburdened with administrative duties. Vesting the responsibility of resolving disputes will result in delays in administration of justice and resolution of such disputes. Therefore, the concern is also whether this change will actually expedite dispute resolution and, if not, then what necessitated the change. Another practical consideration, which was privately expressed, is that it is relatively easier - and more prevalent - to offer kickbacks to those in these executive officers in exchange for a favourable order compared to courts, thereby leading to increased corruption.

The third and professional objection is the impact this change will have on the practice and livelihood of lawyers who practice exclusively in small causes courts and specialise in rent disputes.

It is, therefore, natural that the protest against this Bill originally started only by the association of lawyers of the small causes courts, but later expanded to include lawyers of the district courts and ultimately all lawyers across Gujarat. The Bar Council of Gujarat issued a resolution in support of the protest, calling for a statewide strike of lawyers by abstaining from work until the Bill is rolled back. At the timing of the writing, the strike has been called off after two days due to the repeated assurances from the State government that the Bill will be reconsidered.

The AG’s assurance that the Bill will not see the light of the day - first made before the Gujarat High Court and later through a reel posted and widely shared on social media - is legally suspect for the following reasons.

A close perusal of the AG’s assurance reveals that the deputy chief minister informed him and other stakeholders in a meeting that the Bill has not become an Act yet due to lack of the Governor’s assent. And then, the crucial part: The deputy CM told those attending the meeting that he will immediately call the Governor and tell him not to sign the Bill. The purpose of this was to assure the protesting lawyers that the Bill will “not see the light of the day”, as the AG said.

However, here is the problem. The deputy CM cannot, under the law, tell the Governor not to sign a Bill into an Act. He simply does not have that power. The recent advisory opinion of the Supreme Court In Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India, by a five-judge bench, specifically held that the Governor, while deciding whether to grant his assent to a bill or not, is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, simply put, the assurance of the deputy CM that he will ask the Governor to not sign the Rent Control Bill is unavailing, since the Governor is simply not bound by his advice.

However, notwithstanding the foregoing, this episode raises more dangerous concerns for our democracy. First, the casual attitude with which the deputy CM assures the stakeholders that he will immediately call the Governor and ask him not to sign the Bill reveals a troubling reality — that the Governor is obliging the State government and is likely to take decisions in accordance with the instructions of the State. If that were not the case, the deputy CM would put it very differently than the way he did.

Secondly, for the AG to say this to the people despite being a legal officer himself and presumably knowing the impropriety of this assurance, raises further concerns about the attitude of the State government and the respect it holds for constitutional conventions.

Lastly, even if the Governor withholds his assent - being led not by the deputy CM’s instructions but by his own wisdom in not assenting to a Bill which has met with considerable outrage - he will be exercising a pocket veto, which is again impermissible according to the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion. The Supreme Court has specifically held, in more than one decision, that the Governor cannot sit on a bill for an extended period of time. Therefore, in absence of that option being available to the Governor, the only way out is for the Governor to send the Rent Control Bill back to the legislative assembly for reconsideration (which he can only do once) and for the legislative assembly to never send it back to the Governor again. If that is not done, an anomaly of constitutionally impermissible nature would arise.

However, even otherwise, a curious question arises: can a state legislature withdraw a Bill it has already passed and sent to the Governor, since it no longer remains a bill pending in the legislature but has entered into a different stage of lawmaking? The manner in which the State government and the Governor deal with this issue going forward remains to be seen.

One thing that must be said about this entire episode is that, at the first blush, it may seem like a victory of the people and democracy, but for those with the eyes to see, it has revealed many troubling things about our democracy.

Masoom Sanyal is an advocate at the High Court of Gujarat. Views expressed here are personal. 

This article has its genesis in a fruitful conversation with Advocate Jay Shah and it has benefitted immensely from his inputs.