Back
Assures Rent Bill 2026 Will Not Be Signed
In a dramatic turn of events, informed the on Monday that the state government has assured the that the will not be presented to the Governor for assent, effectively ensuring that the controversial legislation “will not see the light of day.” The assurance came amid a two-day strike by lawyers across the state, who are protesting the Bill’s core provision—transferring rent dispute resolution from civil and small causes courts to administrative officers such as Deputy Collectors and Deputy Municipal Commissioners.
The development unfolded before a bench of Justice Maulik J Shelat, where the Advocate General was appearing in a matter unrelated to the Bill but chose to address the ongoing crisis. “Yesterday we had a meeting with all the members in the presence of Hon’ble Deputy CM and we were given a promise that this Bill will not be signed by the Hon’ble Governor. This will not see the light of the day……We will try to see that original Act is restored. So all the lawyers should see that no work is struck. This was conveyed across the State. I personally talked to him (President of GHCAA) early in the morning, that please don’t do this……It (Bill) will die ,” Trivedi submitted.
Despite this assurance, the Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) proceeded with its planned strike on , leading to the closure of entry gates to the High Court and the adjournment of numerous matters. The Advocate General expressed dismay, noting that the protest continued even after a resolution had been reached with the Deputy Chief Minister. The court orally observed that if developments occurred overnight, they should be communicated, and that “sentiments of everyone should be respected.”
Background of the
The , passed by the , seeks to replace the existing rent control regime with a system where administrative officials—rather than judicial officers—adjudicate landlord-tenant disputes. Lawyers argue that this shift undermines judicial safeguards, removes experienced trial court oversight, and exposes litigants to increased bureaucratic discretion and potential corruption. Critics have claimed that the Bill was introduced and passed without adequate consultation with the legal fraternity, despite multiple representations to the government.
The legal community’s opposition has been vocal. , president of the GHCAA, stated, “A law like the one passed by the is something that wouldn’t even be introduced in North Korea.” The Bill has been forwarded to the Governor for assent, but the state government’s recent assurances indicate a willingness to reconsider and possibly restore the original with inputs from the Bar Council.
The Lawyers’ Strike and Its Impact
The strike, called by the and supported by the GHCAA, saw near-total abstention from work in Ahmedabad. Private lawyers refused to appear before the High Court, and the entry gate meant for lawyers was closed. A bike rally was taken out from the to the Income Tax Circle, where lawyers staged a protest near Mahatma Gandhi’s statue. Proceedings in several courtrooms ended early, and scheduled matters were adjourned. The and the actively participated in the demonstration.
, president of the , and , president of the , were among those leading the protest. Lawyers expressed concern that transferring rent dispute powers to administrative officials who lack experience with trial courts, Supreme Court judgments, and High Court precedents would increase brokering and corruption, ultimately harming both tenants and landlords.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
The core legal issue raised by the Bill is the transfer of from the judiciary to the executive. Under the Indian constitutional framework, adjudication of civil disputes is traditionally a judicial function, and any legislative attempt to reassign such powers to administrative authorities must pass constitutional muster. Lawyers argue that the Bill violates the principle of and weakens the by removing judicial oversight from landlord-tenant disputes—a sensitive area affecting housing rights and property interests.
The Advocate General’s assurance that the Bill “will die ” suggests that the state government may be backing down in the face of intense opposition. However, the deeper concern for the legal community remains: the precedent of introducing legislation that dilutes judicial authority without proper consultation. The ’s decision to hold an extraordinary general meeting on Tuesday to decide the further course of action indicates that the lawyers are not willing to let the matter rest on verbal assurances alone.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
The strike disrupted court operations significantly, highlighting the power of the Bar to influence legislative policy. At the same time, the Advocate General reminded the court of the Supreme Court’s judgments against lawyers striking work, calling the strike “unfortunate.” The bench acknowledged the difficulty in managing court boards during such disruptions.
For legal professionals, this episode underscores the ongoing tension between legislative efficiency and judicial independence. Lawyers in Gujarat view the Bill as an encroachment on the judiciary’s domain and a threat to their livelihood. If the Bill were to become law, it would reduce the volume of rent-related cases in courts, potentially affecting the workload and importance of small causes courts. The assurance from the Deputy Chief Minister that the original Act may be restored offers a temporary reprieve, but the broader debate about the role of courts versus administrative bodies in dispute resolution remains unresolved.
Conclusion
The standoff over the has ended—for now—with the state government’s commitment to withhold the Governor’s assent. The legal fraternity’s swift and coordinated protest has demonstrated its ability to mobilize and influence legislative outcomes. However, the underlying issues—inadequate consultation, the attempted transfer of judicial powers, and the strike culture in the legal profession—require longer-term solutions. As the Bar Council meets to decide its next steps, all eyes will be on whether the state government follows through on its promise to restore the original rent control regime with genuine inputs from the legal community. The outcome of this dispute will have lasting implications for rent law administration in Gujarat and for the relationship between the Bar and the government.
