For the fourth time, the President on Thursday returned the controversial Anti-Terror Bill passed by the Gujarat Assembly. It is the second time President Pranab Mukherjee returned the legislation, seeking additional iformation. This Bill was earlier twice rejected during the UPA regime.
The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime (GCTOC) Bill, 2015, which has been hanging fire since Narendra Modi, as the Gujarat Chief Minister had first introduced it in 2003, was returned by the President to the Home Ministry as he sought more inputs related to certain provisions of the Bill.
“The Home Ministry will provide additional inputs to the President after obtaining the same from the Gujarat government,” a Home Ministry official said. The Home Ministry has informed the President after his communication that it was withdrawing the Bill and will submit a re-worked Bill for his consent.
The controversial Bill was sent to the President in September 2015 for his assent. The Bill provides for admissibility of evidence collected through interception of mobile calls of an accused or through confessions made before an investigating officer, in a court of law.
In July last year, the Modi Government at the Centre had sent back the Bill to the State Government asking it to clarify on certain issues raised by the Ministry of Information and Technology (IT).
The IT Ministry had objected to the provision in the Bill, which allows authorisation of interception of telephone conversations and their admissibility as evidence before a court of law.
The Gujarat Assembly in March 2015 had passed the stringent Bill retaining controversial provisions that had twice earlier led to a previous similar Bill being rejected by the President. The Bill was first rejected by then President APJ Abdul Kalam in 2004, demanding that the clause relating to interception of communication be removed. It was again rejected by President Pratibha Patil.
On both the occasions, the then UPA Government recommended to the President for rejection of the Bill, saying several provisions of the GCTOC were not in conformity of the Central law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.