Law, Lawyers, Judiciary

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>UPA’s answer to communal violence: Army rule, Central rule</b>
Sunday April 24 2005 00:00 IST
NEW DELHI: In the name of ‘‘suppressing’’ communal violence, the UPA Government has drafted <b>a controversial Bill that not only gives the Centre unprecedented powers over states but also equips the armed forces with draconian powers of arrest, search and seizure.</b>

It calls for special courts to try cases and arms them with the power to order externment of people ‘‘likely to commit a scheduled offence.’’

The draft Bill, finalised by the Home Ministry is being studied by the Prime Minister’s Office and the National Advisory Council (NAC) headed by Sonia Gandhi.

According to the preamble to the Communal Violence (Suppression) Bill 2005 - a promise made by the UPA in its Common Minimum Programme - the Bill is in exercise of the constitutional ‘‘duty of the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance.’’

However, it turns established constitutional principle on its head by allowing the Centre to ‘‘prevail’’ over the State in declaring any area as ‘‘communally disturbed.’’

Once the area is declared ‘‘communally disturbed,’’ as per the Bill, the Centre can deploy armed forces and nominate one or more Central officers - not below the rank of Additional Secretary - to ‘‘coordinate steps taken for dealing with the situation.’’

But it’s Clause 7 to Clause 10 that reads like a virtual reprint of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, an act which, the Centre - after the Manipur protests - has committed to reviewing.

Under the Bill, ‘‘any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any person of equivalent rank in the armed forces’’ can:

* Fire, even cause death, after ‘‘giving such due warning as he may consider necessary’’

<b>* Arrest, without warrant - and use ‘‘such force as may be necessary’’ - any one who has committed a cognisable offence or ‘‘against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognisable offence’’</b>

<b>* ‘‘Enter and search without warrant any premises’’ to make any such arrest or to recover property ‘‘reasonably suspected’’ to be stolen property</b>

* Stop, search, seize any vehicle suspected of carrying any person who is believed to have or has committed or is ‘‘about to commit’’ a non-cognisable offence

* Power to break open any ‘‘door, almirah, safe, cupboard, drawer or other thing, if the key thereof is withheld’’

* No legal action, unless the Centre sanctions it, against any person in respect of anything done under the Act

The Bill also provides for setting up special courts either in ‘‘the judicial zone’’ within the state or outside to try riot cases. This court shall be presided over by a judge appointed by the government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court

Clause 21 of the Bill gives the special court an extraordinary power to direct - on being satisfied with a complaint or a police report - those likely to commit an offence to ‘‘remove himself beyond the limit of such area not exceeding six months, as may be specified in that order.’’ Failing which, the people may be ‘‘removed in police custody.’’

Under Clause 28 of the Bill, if it is proved that an accused has given any money to a person accused or ‘‘reasonably suspected’’ of a scheduled offence, the ‘‘special court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such person has abetted the offence.’’

Similarly, the next clause says that if fingerprints of the accused were found at the site of the offence, the special court ‘‘shall draw adverse inference against the accused.’’

On the issue of relief and rehabilitation as well, a subject that has so far been the responsibility of a state government, the Centre, under the Bill, will nominate six of the 10 members of a Relief and Rehabilitation Council
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->