Money-Lenders’ Registration Bill

SELDOM has any measure evoked more widespread and more vigorous opposition in Punjab than the Money-Lenders’ Registration Bill, which has been before the Legislative Council for some time now. That this opposition is entirely well-founded and justified we have seen more than once while discussing the Bill. One point, which is generally overlooked, may however be noticed here: the far-reaching consequences which would follow if the Bill is enacted into law in its present form. It is defined in the Bill that a loan is “a loan, whether of money or in kind, and includes any transaction which is, in the opinion of the court, in substance a loan.” Lending in kind would thus be covered by the Bill. It may not be so intended by the framer of the Bill, but it is easy to see how this definition would include ordinary sale transactions that take place on credit every day in markets, entailing the surrender of goods to the purchaser and leaving the price to be collected later. This is a circumstances which, if taken advantage of by designing persons, is sure to hamper trade seriously. There is, moreover, the serious initial mistake of taking up a measure of this type, with its far-reaching effects, without having made a thorough and searching enquiry as to the precise nature and extent of usury that is alleged to exist. The English Bill, on the model of which the Punjab Bill is stated to be drafted, was not introduced without a detailed investigation and proof of the prevalence of usury and it would be unfair and unjust to allow an indispensable class of persons in Punjab to be very nearly eliminated by exaggerated complaints of “irregular, secret and unfair dealings.”