Opposition ups ante against Communal Violence Bill

In his letter to the Prime Minister, BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi has flagged various provisions of the Bill including Section 3(f) that defines “hostile environment,” on the grounds it was “wide ranging, vague and open to misuse.”

He also objected to the definition of communal violence under Section 3 (d) read with Section 4 as it “would raise questions on whether the Centre is introducing the concept of ‘thought crime’ in the context of the Indian criminal jurisprudence” and expressed disagreement for the move to make public servants, police and security agencies criminally liable. He said it could have an adversely impact on the morale of the law and order enforcement agencies.

“The Centre’s attempt to legislate on issues of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ that are a part of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule show the Centre’s contempt for the federal structure of the nation and the principle of separation of powers,’’ he said.

BSP supremo Mayawati said the federal structure should not be affected by the Bill and deliberations should take into consideration the opinion of all States and all political parties while Naresh Agarwal, SP Rajya Sabha member, dubbed the bill as an attempt by the Centre to encroach upon the rights of the State governments.

Earlier this week, Union Home Secretary Anil Goswami had held a meeting with Home Secretaries of all States as part of the government's bid to build a consensus on the proposed bill.

By and large, the draft bill adheres to the provisions in the 'Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2013' prepared by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC).

The States opposed to the Bill are West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. The Bill proposes to impose duties on the Centre and State governments and their officers to exercise their powers in an impartial and non-discriminatory manner to prevent and control targeted violence, including mass violence against religious or linguistic minorities, SCs and STs.

It also proposes constitution of a body — National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation — by the Centre to exercise the powers and perform the functions assigned to it under this Act. Some of the State governments have opposed the setting up of such a ``supervisory body.’’

CPI leader D. Raja said also expressed reservation about the contents of the Bill and said, “This Bill has some issues, it is said that this bill overrules the State powers. Then, in case of victims also, there is some issue. I do not think this bill can be brought in the house."

SP leader Ramgopal Yadav said there was no possibility of the Bill to come this time [during Winter session.] “No controversial bill will come this time," he added.

Janata Dal (United) leader K.C. Tyagi, however, criticised Mr. Modi for opposing the Bill, and said, “There are obvious reasons for Mr. Modi to oppose the Bill. The Government of Gujarat is solely responsible for massacre in Godhra.’’

Minorities Affairs Minister K. Rahman Khan countered Mr. Modi’s criticism, saying, “Perhaps Mr. Modi does not want any such law. Worst communal violence has taken place in Gujarat and he had failed to control it. It is the duty of the Centre to bring the law.’’

In his letter to the Prime Minister, BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi has flagged various provisions of the Bill including Section 3(f) that defines “hostile environment,” on the grounds it was “wide ranging, vague and open to misuse.”

He also objected to the definition of communal violence under Section 3 (d) read with Section 4 as it “would raise questions on whether the Centre is introducing the concept of ‘thought crime’ in the context of the Indian criminal jurisprudence” and expressed disagreement for the move to make public servants, police and security agencies criminally liable. He said it could have an adversely impact on the morale of the law and order enforcement agencies.

“The Centre’s attempt to legislate on issues of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ that are a part of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule show the Centre’s contempt for the federal structure of the nation and the principle of separation of powers,’’ he said.

BSP supremo Mayawati said the federal structure should not be affected by the Bill and deliberations should take into consideration the opinion of all States and all political parties while Naresh Agarwal, SP Rajya Sabha member, dubbed the bill as an attempt by the Centre to encroach upon the rights of the State governments.

Earlier this week, Union Home Secretary Anil Goswami had held a meeting with Home Secretaries of all States as part of the government's bid to build a consensus on the proposed bill.

By and large, the draft bill adheres to the provisions in the 'Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2013' prepared by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC).

The States opposed to the Bill are West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. The Bill proposes to impose duties on the Centre and State governments and their officers to exercise their powers in an impartial and non-discriminatory manner to prevent and control targeted violence, including mass violence against religious or linguistic minorities, SCs and STs.

It also proposes constitution of a body — National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation — by the Centre to exercise the powers and perform the functions assigned to it under this Act. Some of the State governments have opposed the setting up of such a ``supervisory body.’’

CPI leader D. Raja said also expressed reservation about the contents of the Bill and said, “This Bill has some issues, it is said that this bill overrules the State powers. Then, in case of victims also, there is some issue. I do not think this bill can be brought in the house."

SP leader Ramgopal Yadav said there was no possibility of the Bill to come this time [during Winter session.] “No controversial bill will come this time," he added.

Janata Dal (United) leader K.C. Tyagi, however, criticised Mr. Modi for opposing the Bill, and said, “There are obvious reasons for Mr. Modi to oppose the Bill. The Government of Gujarat is solely responsible for massacre in Godhra.’’

Minorities Affairs Minister K. Rahman Khan countered Mr. Modi’s criticism, saying, “Perhaps Mr. Modi does not want any such law. Worst communal violence has taken place in Gujarat and he had failed to control it. It is the duty of the Centre to bring the law.’’