GUJARAT MUST GIVE UP TERROR BILL
Gujarat should give up its persistent(जिद्दी/हठी) efforts to get the controversial(विवादास्पद) Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Bill, 2015, approved by the President. First moved by Narendra Modi in 2003 when he was Chief Minister of the State, the Bill has been facing objections on the ground that it contains some draconian provisions(कठोर प्रावधान). The Centre refused to clear the Bill three times when the United Progressive Alliance was in power. The Union Home Ministry has now recalled the Bill from the office of the President, to whom it had been sent for assent(अनुमति). The reason appears to be that it wants the Bill to be reworked based on additional inputs from the State government. The controversial nature of the GCTOC Bill became apparent(स्पष्ट) after A.P.J. Abdul Kalam as President objected to a clause that made evidence(गवाह )based on interception(अवरोधन) of communication admissible(स्वीकार्य) in court. His successor,(उत्तराधिकारी), Pratibha Patil, too declined assent. In March 2015, the Assembly passed the Bill and sent it afresh(नए सिरे से) to the Centre for presidential assent. The Centre ultimately(अंत में) prevailed(जितना) in having the clause that permitted the State Home Secretary to authorise the interception of telephone calls on his own dropped. Under the Indian Telegraph Act, State Home Secretaries do authorise telephone taps, but using power delegated(प्रत्यायोजित) to them by the Centre. The watered-down Bill was sent last September to the President for his assent. It has been recalled now, possibly because of fears that President Pranab Mukherjee might refuse assent again.
India’s repeated experiments with anti-terrorism laws have been, by and large, unsuccessful. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities(विघटनकारी गतिविधियां) (Prevention) Act, 1985, a law considered as draconian(कठोर) as the Rowlatt Act of the colonial era(औपनिवेशिक युग), and its latter-day version, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2003, had been allowed to lapse after it was found that they were prone to persistent misuse(लगातार दुरूपयोग ). However, with the substantive amendments(मूल संसोधन) made to the Unlawful Activities(गैरक़ानूनी गतिविधियां) (Prevention) Act in 2012, the country does have an effective law to curb modern-day terrorism. The Gujarat law is modelled on the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, but that does not make it any more acceptable. The Maharashtra law itself has not achieved any remarkable success in curbing(नियंत्रण करना) organised crime. When it was invoked(लागु करना) recently in a cricket spot-fixing case in Delhi, it failed miserably(बुरी तरह) during trial, demonstrating(प्रदर्शन) how such laws can be reduced to a mockery(मजाक) through improper application. The GCTOC Bill also has provisions(प्रावधान) similar to earlier anti-terrorism laws(आतंक विरोधी कानून), such as making confession(अपराध स्वीकृति) to a police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police admissible in court, and allowing 180 days, instead of the usual 90, for the filing of a charge sheet. There is really no need for more State-level laws of such a nature. Police investigators need better resources and training to combat(सामना करना) organised crime and terror, and not laws that abridge(संक्षप्तिकरन ) and modify conventional criminal procedure to the detriment(हानि) of human rights.
Gujarat should give up its persistent(जिद्दी/हठी) efforts to get the controversial(विवादास्पद) Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Bill, 2015, approved by the President. First moved by Narendra Modi in 2003 when he was Chief Minister of the State, the Bill has been facing objections on the ground that it contains some draconian provisions(कठोर प्रावधान). The Centre refused to clear the Bill three times when the United Progressive Alliance was in power. The Union Home Ministry has now recalled the Bill from the office of the President, to whom it had been sent for assent(अनुमति). The reason appears to be that it wants the Bill to be reworked based on additional inputs from the State government. The controversial nature of the GCTOC Bill became apparent(स्पष्ट) after A.P.J. Abdul Kalam as President objected to a clause that made evidence(गवाह )based on interception(अवरोधन) of communication admissible(स्वीकार्य) in court. His successor,(उत्तराधिकारी), Pratibha Patil, too declined assent. In March 2015, the Assembly passed the Bill and sent it afresh(नए सिरे से) to the Centre for presidential assent. The Centre ultimately(अंत में) prevailed(जितना) in having the clause that permitted the State Home Secretary to authorise the interception of telephone calls on his own dropped. Under the Indian Telegraph Act, State Home Secretaries do authorise telephone taps, but using power delegated(प्रत्यायोजित) to them by the Centre. The watered-down Bill was sent last September to the President for his assent. It has been recalled now, possibly because of fears that President Pranab Mukherjee might refuse assent again.
India’s repeated experiments with anti-terrorism laws have been, by and large, unsuccessful. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities(विघटनकारी गतिविधियां) (Prevention) Act, 1985, a law considered as draconian(कठोर) as the Rowlatt Act of the colonial era(औपनिवेशिक युग), and its latter-day version, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2003, had been allowed to lapse after it was found that they were prone to persistent misuse(लगातार दुरूपयोग ). However, with the substantive amendments(मूल संसोधन) made to the Unlawful Activities(गैरक़ानूनी गतिविधियां) (Prevention) Act in 2012, the country does have an effective law to curb modern-day terrorism. The Gujarat law is modelled on the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, but that does not make it any more acceptable. The Maharashtra law itself has not achieved any remarkable success in curbing(नियंत्रण करना) organised crime. When it was invoked(लागु करना) recently in a cricket spot-fixing case in Delhi, it failed miserably(बुरी तरह) during trial, demonstrating(प्रदर्शन) how such laws can be reduced to a mockery(मजाक) through improper application. The GCTOC Bill also has provisions(प्रावधान) similar to earlier anti-terrorism laws(आतंक विरोधी कानून), such as making confession(अपराध स्वीकृति) to a police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police admissible in court, and allowing 180 days, instead of the usual 90, for the filing of a charge sheet. There is really no need for more State-level laws of such a nature. Police investigators need better resources and training to combat(सामना करना) organised crime and terror, and not laws that abridge(संक्षप्तिकरन ) and modify conventional criminal procedure to the detriment(हानि) of human rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Don't forget to write comments if you like the post.