Lawyers across Gujarat have staged a statewide protest against the Rent Control Bill, 2026, which seeks to move rent-dispute jurisdiction from small-causes courts to revenue officials such as mamlatdars and deputy collectors.
Objections from the bar
The dissent centers on three grounds. First, the proposal appears to breach the separation of powers because adjudicating disputes is a judicial function that cannot be assigned to an executive office.
Supreme Court precedent requires tribunals to include a judicial member alongside a technical expert, a safeguard the bill would discard by vesting authority in purely administrative officers.
Second, the practical impact raises doubts. Mamlatdars and deputy collectors already manage heavy administrative workloads; adding dispute resolution could delay justice rather than speed it.
Third, the professional effect threatens lawyers who specialize in rent cases before small-causes courts. Their practice and income could be undermined if courts lose that jurisdiction.
The Bar Council of Gujarat endorsed the protest, calling for a strike that lasted two days before being lifted after the state assured that the bill would be reconsidered.
Governor’s assent and legal limits
During a meeting, the Deputy Chief Minister told attendees that the bill had not become law because the Governor had not yet given assent. He added he would immediately call the Governor to ask for a refusal, assuring lawyers the bill would “not see the light of the day.”
The deputy chief minister lacks authority to direct the Governor’s decision. The Supreme Court advisory opinion in Re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by a five-judge bench held that the Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when deciding on assent.
If the Governor chooses to withhold assent, the Constitution limits the duration of such a hold and permits only one return of the bill to the legislature for reconsideration.
Legal assessment of the Advocate General’s assurance
The Advocate General’s statement that the bill “will not see the light of the day” was made before the Gujarat High Court and later circulated publicly, but it does not alter the constitutional parameters governing assent.
A close reading reveals that the statement relies on the premise that the state’s executive can influence the constitutional head’s decision. Supreme Court guidance, however, makes clear that the head of state may act independently of ministerial counsel when exercising the assent function.
Procedural options for the constitutional head and the legislature
If the legislature does not resend the bill after that single return, the bill will not become law.
