Opposition to Gujarat legislation is unjustified
The hue and cry that the Congress and some civil society activists have raised against the Gujarat Assembly's passage of an anti-terror Bill, is uncalled for, although their protest is understandable given that they have been consistently opposed to what has now been renamed as the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Bill, 2015. They hope that President Pranab Mukherjee will either withhold his assent or send the Bill back to the State Government for reconsideration. A similar Bill, called the Gujarat Control of Organised Crime Bill, 2003, had failed to get the nod during the presidencies of Mr APJ Abdul Kalam and Ms Pratibha Patil in 2004 and 2008 respectively (the Congress-led UPA Government was at the helm in the Centre in the second case) and had vociferously opposed the move of the State regime — then headed by Mr Narendra Modi. Gandhinagar must be hoping for a better outcome with a Bharatiya Janata Party-led NDA and Mr Modi as Prime Minister, in New Delhi.
It remains to be seen how the President views the fresh initiative, though it is unlikely that the change in regime at the Centre is going to be the only or even the most decisive factor. Meanwhile, the protests against the Bill are more political than human rights-oriented. The Congress had no problems with the equally stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, which a coalition Government led by it had brought way back in 1999. The then Maharashtra Government had justified the move by explaining that the State was vulnerable to terror activities and only a strong law could bring the culprits to book and also act as an effective deterrence. The anti-terror legislation's impact was felt even beyond Maharashtra's boundaries. Two years ago, Delhi Police had invoked MCOCA against the accused in a Rs5.5 crore heist case so that the latter did not quickly walk out on bail. Gujarat is no less vulnerable than Maharashtra, and it deserves a special anti-terror law with teeth. For that matter, any State which believes it needs a similar legislation would be justified in going ahead with the proposal.
Those who oppose the Gujarat anti-terror Bill claim that the provisions militate against the rights of individuals and give unfettered powers to the police. They point to the Sections by which the statement of an accused nabbed under the proposed law and recorded before an officer of the rank of a Superintendent of Police, can be admissible in a court of law. They say that confessions are often got under duress. But then the accused always has the right to allege that in the court and deny the confessional. The rights to empower the police to tap phones, to extend custody of an accused from the present 90 days to 180 days without filing a chargesheet, and to attach the property of the accused, are all meant to give room to the investigating officers to deal with the serious issue of terror. Terrorism cannot be tackled by using normal methods that are effective in dealing with other offences. Countries across the world have adopted special provisions to combat terror-related crimes. The scope of misuse does exist, but we have the courts and other mechanisms, including civil society pressure groups, to keep such instances in check and ensure punishment to the guilty.