Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill-2005
Notwithstanding the Centre’s clarifications and explanations that it is not the Draconian document that state governments are making it out to be, apprehensions about the federal structure of the country and the Centre assuming extensive powers continue to affect thinking.
IF THE response to the Bill from various state governments, legal luminaries and other social organisations was any indication, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government would find it difficult to get the requisite support of state governments to enact the new law.
As the Bill proposing to give more teeth to Centre comes under public scrutiny, there appear sharp differences over its provisions. Besides apprehensions that the Bill would have an adverse impact on the federal structure of the country, there is also a growing feeling that the Centre would get unrestrained powers, sans safeguards to check misuse of its provisions.
Amidst stiff opposition from the State Government, legal luminaries, politicians and other experts have expressed serious reservations against the Bill. Some groups representing women have also demanded that a separate chapter be added to the Bill to deal with offences against women.
Under such a situation, a seminar proposed to be organised in Lucknow to debate issues concerning the Bill has been deferred twice from January 31 and February 12 to March end now. In fact, the seminar itself seems to have come under a cloud of sorts, as the Centre is yet to communicate fresh dates.
{{/usCountry}}Under such a situation, a seminar proposed to be organised in Lucknow to debate issues concerning the Bill has been deferred twice from January 31 and February 12 to March end now. In fact, the seminar itself seems to have come under a cloud of sorts, as the Centre is yet to communicate fresh dates.
{{/usCountry}}If officials of the State Government were to be believed, the Bill may not get support from most states. Besides Uttar Pradesh, the neighbouring states including Uttaranchal Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh and Orissa were invited to the seminar. Most of them were not inclined to support the Bill.
Hence there appear no takers for the Bill despite indications from the Centre that appropriate modifications may be made in the Bill by incorporating suggestions.
The UP Government has also opposed the Bill on the grounds that any meddling with the federal structure would not be tolerated. Notwithstanding the assertions of Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil to the contrary, there are apprehensions that various provisions of the Bill may provide sufficient ground to the Centre to invoke Article 355 and 356 of the Constitution.
The Centre had decided to bring the Bill to deal with Gujarat-like situations of communal violence that were witnessed there in 2002. There are allegations that the state machinery was in league with rioters there. Besides Gujarat, the Bill also needs to be scrutinised in the backdrop of Delhi riots of 1984, Bhagalpur in 1989 and Mumbai in 1992-1993.
As per the objectives, the Bill proposes “to empower the state government and the Central Government to take measures to provide for the prevention and control of communal violence, which threatens the secular fabric, unity, integrity and internal security of the nation and rehabilitation of victims of such violence and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
So was there a need to give more teeth to the Centre or the state government to deal with situations of communal violence? Officials of the UP Government say a firm no, asserting that more powers to the Centre would mean more misuse.
As dealing with the law and order situation was the prerogative of the State Government, the Centre could not be allowed to make any intrusion in such areas, they say.
The UP Government’s main objections pertain to the provisions that propose special powers to the Centre to deal with communal violence in certain cases.
Such controversial provisions include Section 55 of Chapter XI that reads-
(1)“Whenever the Central Government is of the opinion that one or more scheduled offences are being committed in any area within a state by any person or group of persons in such manner and on such a scale which involves the use of criminal force or violence against members of any group, caste and community, resulting in death or destruction of property and such use of criminal force, or violence is committed with a view to create disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups, caste or communities and there is an imminent threat to the secular fabric, unity integrity or internal security of India, which requires that immediate steps shall be taken by State Government concerned,” the Centre shall
(a) draw the attention of the state government to the prevailing situation in that area, and
(b) direct the State Government to take all immediate measures to suppress such violence or the use of criminal force within such time as may be specified in the direction.
(2) The State Government shall take appropriate action to prevent and control communal violence on the issue of a direction under sub-clause (1)
(3) Where the Central Government is of opinion that directions issued under sub-clause (2) are not followed, it may take such action as is necessary including-
(a) the issue of a notification declaring any area within a state as “communally disturbed area,”
(b) the deployment of armed forces prevent and control communal violence on a request having been received from the State Government to do so.
(4) Where it is decided to deploy armed forces under sub-clause (3) the Central government or the State Government may constitute an authority to be known as Unified Command for the purpose of coordinating and monitoring the role and responsibilities of the forces of the Union and States and for giving appropriate directions to such forces.
(5) The forces deployed under sub-clause (3) shall act under the control and as per the directions of the District Magistrate or any officer nominated by the State Government or the Unified Command.
Objections to the Bill
The State Government feels that empowering Centre with powers to notify any area as communally disturbed, is a derogation of its inherent rights. Right to issue notification should remain with the State Government.
Section 2 (1) (g) provides for setting up of National Communal Disturbance Relief and Rehabilitation Council that would be empowered to make recommendations and visit communally disturbed area.
The State Government asserts there is no justification to set up the council on the recommendations of which the Centre would be entitled to send Central Para Military Forces (CPMF) in a communally disturbed area.
The State Government feels that deployment of the CPMF should be within its purview and Centre should provide them without any charges.
Provision for a competent authority in addition to the district magistrate would create more confusion and lead to duplication of authority. The district magistrates were already enjoying the same powers that the Centre proposed to vest with the competent authority.
As per provisions of the Bill the competent authority would be empowered to issue any instructions to check communal violence. Such instructions would remain effective for 30 days. The State Government could extend the period to 60 days. This provision was unnecessary as the DM and the State Government already enjoyed powers that could remain effective till 60 days and 180 days, respectively.
The State Government is opposed to the provision that gives a month’s time to it to prosecute guilty officers. This provision should be extended to three months, to enable home and law departments to examine various aspects.
The State Government is also opposed to the provision of a review committee to reopen cases for investigations. This is the inherent right of the State Government that should remain with it.
The State Government feels that empowering the Centre to formulate rules was not justified.
The Centre’s powers to meddle with affairs of a state government should be minimised.