E-Paper
Maharashtra government refers Shakti bill to panel of legislators after Opposition, women’s rights activists raise objections
The Maharashtra government on Tuesday sent the Shakti bill that aimed to increase the penalty for crimes against women and children to a joint select committee for
The Maharashtra government on Tuesday sent the Shakti bill that aimed to increase the penalty for crimes against women and children to a joint select committee for review, after members of the opposition and several women’s rights activists opposed sections of it.
Members of the opposition Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) demanded a thorough discussion on the provisions of the bill, which they said would have far-reaching ramifications. Leader of opposition Devendra Fadnavis moved the motion demanding the bill be sent to a joint select committee.
“This is an important bill and it needs to be deliberated upon at length. It will lose its effectiveness if passed in haste. Since the detailed discussion was not possible in this session due to curtailment of the duration, we demanded the bill to be sent to joint select committee, or else table it in the next session. The state government has not taken us into confidence on such key bills,” said Fadnavis.
More than 90 women’s rights groups, activists, lawyers and academics wrote to chief minister Uddhav Thackeray last week stating that the newly introduced law would “completely deny women any hope of justice” and sought “a larger consultation with activists, lawyers and academicians who are working on these issues”.
Accepting the demand, deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar said, “The joint select commitee will have 15 members from the Assembly and six from the council and will conduct meetings to review the bills over next two months. We will try to accommodate maximum women members in the committee. The bill will be reintroduced in budget session in February-March after the review by the committee.”
The Maharashtra Legislative Council also gave its approval to refer the draft bill to committee on Tuesday.
The committee comprising 21 legislators of both houses is expected to submit a report on it.
In its current version, the bill provides for the death penalty for rape and gang rape and penetrative sexual assault against women and children, and introduces an amendment to Section 375 to allow for the presumption of consent, which goes against the clarity provided by the central law.
On Monday, the state home minister Anil Deshmukh tabled the Maharashtra Shakti Criminal Law (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2020, and the Maharashtra Exclusive Special Courts (for certain offences against women and children under Shakti law) Act, 2020, which propose amendments to criminal laws in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and seek the establishment of special trial courts to fast track such cases.
The bills hike the punishment for certain crimes to death penalty and fines to up to Rs 10 lakh. They also make it mandatory to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet within 15 days as well as complete the trial within 30 days of filing the charge sheet.
Once passed, the bills will also require the Centre’s nod.
The bills were drafted by the home department after forming a committee of police officials, studying the Andhra Pradesh Disha Act passed in February. A team of the government and police officials led by Dehsmukh visited Andhra Pradesh last year, and a cabinet sub-committee of senior ministers deliberated upon the draft prepared by the home department before both bills were tabled in the legislature earlier this week.
Veena Gowda, a women’s rights lawyer said, “We really appreciate the fact that the government has referred it to the joint committee. We believe this bill needs a lot more deliberation and debate. We are opposed to bringing in the presumption of consent, providing punishment for false complaints, and introducing the death penalty… [These] do not stand the test of constitutionality.”
