Govt opposes parts of Communal Violence Bill

TERMING THE Communal Violence (Prevention, control and rehabilitation of victims) Bills- 2005 as derogation of its inherent rights, the State Government has identified 12 points to build a case against the Bill. As per the 12-point document, the State Government is opposed to Section 2 (1) (g) of the Bill that proposes to set up a National Communal Disturbance Relief and Rehabilitation Council that would be empowered to visit the riot-affected areas besides submitting recommendations to the State Government.

The State Government has opposed the move of setting up of the Council as it proposes to give more teeth to the Centre. Union Minister for Home Shivraj Patil will inaugurate a seminar on this issue in Lucknow on February 12. Chief Secretary R Ramani will also attend a seminar in New Delhi on Tuesday.

As per the proposal, if the State Government fails to accept the recommendations of the Council, the Centre would be empowered to notify such an area as riot-affected and send para-military forces without concurrence of the State Government. Opposing the move, the State Government has pointed out that the district magistrates (DM) have inherent powers to summon the Central forces under Section 130 of the Cr PC.

The State Government has also opposed the provision to set up a competent authority in addition to the DMs. As the DMs and the competent authority would enjoy similar powers, the provision would lead to duplicity in authority, feel officers of the State Government.

Under the provisions, the competent authority would be entitled to issue necessary directives to check communal violence. Such directives would remain effective till 30 days. The State Government would be entitled to issue such directives to be effective till 60 days. The State Government has also opposed the move on the grounds that it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Cr PC. The DMs are already entitled to issue such directives for 60 days while the State Government’s directives could remain effective till 180 days.

The State Government has also opposed the provision that gives a month’s time to the State Government to launch prosecution against the guilty employees.

This period should be at least three months, feel officers of the State Government.