The Supreme Court went by the traditional legal wisdom derived from advanced western economies and legal systems that the principles of natural justice do not apply to legislative action. With this the apex court lost a major opportunity for democratisation of the law-making process, which today is done secretively in the offices of the ministry of law.

A pre-legislative hearing would make the law-making process more rational. Industrialists would be able to put their data and point of view before the legal babus in charge of law making. This would organise labour and their unions into constructive thinking and data collection process required of meeting the case of the industrialists.

The legal babu in the ministry who at present drafts a law on the basis of file notings,inter-ministerial notes and whatever material may or may not be put before him, would be able to do his drafting work in an enlightened manner. Given the way our Parliament discusses the bills, this process in the ministry itself would compensate for the lack of informed rational reading and discussion by most of our MPs and MLAs. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not take this into account and instead closed the issue of pre-legislative hearings in labour welfare matters on the basis of received wisdom.

A pre-legislative hearing would also end the secretive lobbying and corruption that go on today with the political-cum-administrative process of law making. The Supreme Court failed to recognise that in this law-making process the industrialists and labour do not enjoy a level-playing field. This is more so in areas where the labour is unorganised. It also failed to recognise the fact that most of the labour in India is unorganised and the trade union movement has bypassed most working Indians.

Hencesuch labour most often does not even know what politicians and administrators are doing in their name under the guise of the constitutional phrase "the general public interest", associated with the fundamental rights in the Constitution.

Even if they come to know, it is almost impossible for such labour to get a pass for entrance to the ministry and talk to the relevant officer of the law ministry. Most of such labour is illiterate despite the directive principle of free and compulsory education for all till the age of fourteen.

They can communicate only orally. The normal process of sending in written representations is automatically ruled out. But while considering the directive principles in this very case and calling these the "wisdom of the nation", the apex court missed the nation's ground realities in interpreting constitutional principles for pre-legislative hearing.

The judge-run legal aid is dormant when such legislation is being formulated. It remains dormant when labour challenges suchlegislation or when it is forced to defend it. Thus a pre-legislative hearing wou-ld have created a degree of equality between labour and industrialists and in any event put legal aid resources to good use in preventive legal action.

Even from the viewpoint of testing the reasonableness of a law a pre-legislative hearing would be valid. The Supreme Court has laid down that what is reasonable depends on the changing conditions, the value of human life, social philosophy of the Constitution, prevailing conditions and the surrounding circumstances. Surely, prevention is better than subsequent judicial cure by asking the ministries concerned to take these factors into account by giving a pre-legislative hearing.

This would end the usual political bravado of trying to get media popularity by framing laws that prescribe drastic punishments and later fail administratively, legally or on both grounds. The only results of such bravado are corruption move litigation.

Finally, even if the law is attacked in thecourt for being tested as to its legality there would be rational material available to the court itself in terms of the data and material put at such pre-legislative hearing. The Union or the state government concerned would then be made accountable as to why and how it chose the legislative path it did in the light of the facts and circumstances put before it. The state defence of such legislation would not then be dependent on the political party in power and its law officers in the high courts or the Supreme Court. The courts would not be left to speculate as to the reasonableness of a legislation, which would then include whether the necessary finance and manpower have been made available for the effective implementation of the law. Under a holistic Constitution, the court would be able to make a holistic interpretation rooted in the actual conditions of daily life.

Ultimately the Supreme Court had an opportunity to make politicians and legal babus responsible and accountable for the making of laws ina society supposed to be governed by the rule of law. It had an opportunity to make industrialists and labour, employer and employees join together in rational discourse for better living. Lastly, it had an opportunity to prevent itself from being flooded by litigation. The apex court's judgment in this case is a tale of missed opportunities wherein it did not even say that the Union government could initiate such pre-legislative hearings on its own.