What a Draft? The Majorities have no recourse except to convert into Minority in due course of time. Truly another step towards subdivision of Country and encouraging further Conversions.
Just see the implications and aftermaths:-
1. The SC/ST clubbed with minorities. Showing them with other religions is an step towards taking them further away from Majority and may be convert into so called "Minority". A very well thought larger picture.
2.The Minorities will always be sufferers and victims even if they have committed assault. Its a way of only one way punishment.
3.If you dont buy something from a shop of Minority and buy a thing from shop of Majority he is the sufferer. Since psychological and mental harm has been caused on him in restraint of trade. He can take action agnst you under this Act. Clause 3(f) of the Bill.and 3(k) of the bill.
What does the bill in effect
state
The most vital definition of the bill is of
the expression 'group'. A 'group' means a religious or linguistic minority and
in a given state may include the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The
bill creates a whole set of new offences in Chapter II. Clause 6 clarifies that
the offences under this bill are in addition to the offences under the SC &
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Can a person be punished twice for the
same offence?
Clause 7 prescribes that a person is said to
commit sexual assault if he or she commits any of the sexual act against a
person belonging to a 'group' by virtue of that person's membership of a group.
Clause 8 prescribes that 'hate propaganda' is an offence when a person by words
oral or written or a visible representation causes hate against a 'group' or a
person belonging to a 'group'.
Clause 9 creates an offence for communal and
targeted violence. Any person who singly or jointly or acting under the
influence of an association engages in unlawful activity directed against a
'group' is guilty of organised communal and targeted violence.
Clause 10 provides for punishment of a person
who expends or supplies money in the furtherance or support of an offence
against a 'group'. The offence of torture is made out under clause 12 where a
public servant inflicts pain or a suffering, mental or physical, on a person
belonging to a 'group'.
Clause 13 punishes a public servant for
dereliction of duty in relation to offences mentioned in this bill. Clause 14
punishes public servants who control the armed forces or security forces and
fails to exercise control over people in his command in order to discharge
their duty effectively.
Clause 15 expands the principle of vicarious
liability. An offence is deemed to be committed by a senior person or office
bearer of an association and he fails to exercise control over subordinates
under his control or supervision. He is vicariously liable for an offence which
is committed by some other person. Clause 16 renders orders of superiors as no
defence for an alleged offence committed under this section.
Any communal trouble during which offences
are committed is a law and order problem. Dealing with the law and order is
squarely within the domain of the state governments. In the division of powers
between the Centre and the states, the central government has no direct
authority to deal with the law and order issues; nor is it directly empowered
to deal with them nor it can legislate on the subject. The central government's
jurisdiction restricts itself to issue advisories, directions and eventually
forming an opinion under Article 356 that the governance of the state can be
carried on in accordance with the Constitution or not.
If the proposed bill becomes a law, then
effectively it is the central government which would have usurped the
jurisdiction of the states and legislated on a subject squarely within the
domain of the states.
India has been gradually moving towards a
more amicable inter-community relationship. Even when minor communal or caste
disturbances occur, there is a national mood of revulsion against them. The
governments, media, the courts among other institutions rise to perform their
duty. The perpetrators of communal trouble should certainly be punished.
This draft bill however proceeds on a presumption
that communal trouble is created only by members of the majority community and
never by a member of the minority community. Thus, offences committed by
members of the majority community against members of the minority community are
punishable. Identical offences committed by minority groups against the
majority are not deemed to be offences at all.
Thus a sexual assault is punishable under
this bill and only if committed against a person belonging to a minority
'group'. A member of a majority community in a state does not fall within the
purview of a 'group'. A 'hate propaganda' is an offence against minority
community and not otherwise. Organised and targeted violence, hate propaganda,
financial help to such persons who commit an offence, torture or dereliction of
duty by public servants are all offences only if committed against a member of
the minority community and not otherwise.
No member of the majority community can ever
be a victim. This draft law thus proceeds on an assumption which re-defines the
offences in a highly discriminatory manner. No member of the minority community
are to be punished under this act for having committed the offence against the
majority community.
It is only a member of the majority community
who is prone to commit such offences and therefore the legislative intent of
this law is that since only majority community members commit these offences,
culpability and punishment should only be confined to them.
If implemented in a manner as provided by
this bill, it opens up a huge scope for abuse. It can incentivise members of
some communities to commit such offences encouraged by the fact that they would
never be charged under the act.
Terrorist groups may no longer indulge in
terrorist violence. They will be incentivised to create communal riots due to a
statutory assumption that members of a jihadi group will not be punished under
this law. The law makes only members of the majority community culpable. Why
should the law discriminate on the basis of a religion or caste?
An offence is an offence irrespective of
origin of the offender. Here is a proposed law being legislated in the 21st
century where caste and religion of an offender wipe out the culpability under
this law.
Who will ensure implementation of
this act
The bill provides for a seven-member national
authority for communal harmony, justice and reparations. Of these seven members
at least four of them including the chairman and vice-chairman shall only
belong to a 'group' (the minority community). A similar body is intended to be
created in the states. Membership of this body thus shall be on religious and
caste grounds. The offenders under this law are only the members of the
majority community.
The enforcement of the act will be done by a
body where statutorily the members of the majority community will be in a
minority. The governments will have to make available police and other
investigative agencies to this authority. This authority shall have a power to
conduct investigations and enter buildings, conduct raids and searches to make
inquiries into complaints and to initiate steps, record proceedings for
prosecution and make its recommendations to the governments.
It shall have powers to deal with the armed
forces. It has a power to send advisories to the central and state governments.
Members of this authority shall be appointed in the case of central government
by a collegium which shall comprise of prime minister, the home minister, and
the leader of the opposition in the house of people and a leader of each
recognised political party. A similar provision is created in relation to the
states. Thus, it is the opposition at the Centre and the states which will have
a majority say in the composition of the authority.
What are the procedures to be
followed
The procedures to be followed for
investigations under this act are extraordinary. No statement shall be recorded
under section 161 of the CrPC. Victim statements shall be only under section
164 (before courts). The government will have a power to intercept and block
messages and telecommunications under this law. Under clause 74 of the bill if
an offence of hate propaganda is alleged against a person, a presumption of
guilt shall exist unless the offender proves to the contrary. An allegation
thus is equivalent to proof. Public servants under this bill under clause 67
are liable to be proceeded against without any sanction from the state.
The special public prosecutor to conduct
proceedings under this act shall not act in aid of truth but 'in the interest
of the victim'. The name and identity of the victim complainant will not be
disclosed. Progress of the case will be reported by the police to the victim
complainant. The occurrence of organised communal and targeted violence under
this act shall amount to an internal disturbance in a state within the meaning
of Article 355 entitling the central government to impose President's Rule.
The drafting of this bill appears to be a
handiwork of those social entrepreneurs who have learnt from the Gujarat
experience of how to fix senior leaders even when they are not liable for an
offence.
Offences which are defined under the bill
have been deliberately left vague. Communal and targeted violence means
violence which destroys the 'secular fabric of the nation'. There can be
legitimate political differences as to what constitutes secularism. The phrase
secularism can be construed differently by different persons. Which definition
is the judge supposed to follow? Similarly, the creation of a hostile
'environment' may leave enough scope for a subjective decision as to what
constitutes 'a hostile environment'.
The inevitable consequences of such a law
would be that in the event of any communal trouble the majority community would
be assumed to be guilty. There would be a presumption of guilt unless otherwise
proved. Only a member of the majority shall be held culpable under this law.
A member of the minority shall never commit
an offence of hate propaganda or a communal violence. There is a virtual
statutory declaration of innocence under this law for him.
The statutory authority prescribed at the
central and state level would intrinsically suffer from an institutional bias
because of its membership structure based on caste and community.
I have no doubt that once this law is
implemented with the intention with which it is being drafted, it will create
disharmony in the inter-community relations in India. It is a law fraught with
dangerous consequences. It is bound to be misused. Perhaps, that appears to be
the real purpose behind its drafting. It will encourage minority communalism.
The law defies the basic principles of equality and fairness.
Social entrepreneurs in the National Advisory
Council can be expected to draft such a dangerous and discriminatory law. One
wonders how the political head of that body cleared this draft. When some
persons carried on a campaign against the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act -- an anti-terrorist law, the members of the UPA argued that
even terrorists should be tried under the normal laws. A far more draconian law
is now being proposed.
The states will be watching hopelessly when
the Centre goes ahead with this misadventure. Their power is being usurped. The
search for communal harmony is through fairness -- not through reverse
discrimination.
Really draconian. The Bill may or may not pass but the cause of Concern is the THOUGHT PROCESS(off course congress and soniaji) behind this draft .......
No comments:
Post a Comment