Amid growing opposition to the Communal Violence Bill, the Government has agreed to dilute some of the contentious provisions to make it more acceptable to various stakeholders.
The Government is likely to bring a new draft that will be neutral between communities and not place the onus on the majority community for communal riots. Sources said the changes could also address the fear of the States on violation of the federal structure of the Constitution.
The new draft will give the Centre the right to interfere in the law and order issue at the time of communal disturbance only on the recommendation of the States.
The Centre’s move came after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the Government will try to evolve a broad-based consensus on issues which are of “great” legislative importance and the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi dubbed the Bill as a “recipe for disaster.”
BSP chief Mayawati, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and even Samajwadi Party have expressed serious reservations against the Bill. Sources said the draft Bill is now neutral between all communities and the Central Government will not have any perceived overriding powers anywhere. The earlier version of the Bill specifically mentioned that the onus of riots lay on the majority community.
Sources claimed the draft Bill will not impact the federal structure of the country as feared and the Central Government’s role will largely be of coordination and will act only when the State Government seeks help. The fresh draft says: “If the State Government is of the opinion that assistance of the Central Government is required for controlling communal violence, it may seek the assistance of the Centre to deploy armed forces of the Union for such purposes...”
Earlier, the Centre was given unilateral powers to send central paramilitary forces during the outbreak of communal violence without consulting the State Government. Confident that with the dilution, the Centre can get support of the Opposition, Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde said the Government will bring the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2013 in the current Winter Session of Parliament.
While Modi on Thursday wrote to the Prime Minister terming the Bill as “ill-conceived, poorly drafted and a recipe for disaster,” Mayawati called for a consensus before introducing the legislation in Parliament.
“They (Government) are trying to bring the legislation, but before that, they should ensure there is consensus, and after that, they should take a decision and introduce the Bill in both houses of Parliament,” she said.
BSP’s arch-rival and UPA’s longstanding prop, Samajwadi Party is also hesitant to back the Bill. SP leader Naresh Agarwal said the Communal Violence Bill will curb State rights and therefore many States have been opposing it.
The Congress got some solace when NCP came out in support of the Bill. “Though, there can be a discussion on it, in which parties opposing the introduction of this Bill can put their points forward, as to why they think it should not be introduced,” said senior NCP leader Tariq Anwar.
Bringing the issue back in the spotlight, Modi raised several objections to the controversial Bill in his letter to the Prime Minister.
Modi said the Bill was an attempt to encroach upon the authority of State Governments and sought wider consultation among various stakeholders such as the States, political parties, police and security agencies before any further movement on the issue.
“There is a need to be vigilant on communal violence but the contents and timing of the Bill are suspicious and driven by vote bank politics rather than genuine concern for preventing communal violence,” he said adding that the hurry of the Centre to introduce the Bill in Parliament is in view of the upcoming lok Sabha elections.
Section 3(F) of the Bill that defines “hostile environment” is wide-ranging, vague and open to misuse. likewise, the definition of communal violence under Section 3(D) read with Section 4 would raise questions on whether the Centre is introducing the concept of ‘thought crime’ in the context of Indian criminal jurisprudence, he said.
Strongly opposing the move to make public servants, police and security agencies criminally liable, Modi warned that such a move would adversely impact the morale of law enforcement agencies and may also make them vulnerable to political victimization.
On Section 10 B (breach of command responsibility) that penalizes a public servant for the failure of his subordinates, Modi wrote that this provision is absurd as it tries to deal with incompetence by trying to criminalize it.
Saying that such issues need structural responses he criticized the tendency to find legislative solutions to all problems. He also warned that senior officials would shy away from intervening due to the fear of criminal liability and leave junior officials to fend for themselves on the field.
“The proposed legislation would further divide Indian society on religious and linguistic lines, saying that religious and linguistic identities would become more reinforced and even ordinary incidents of violence would be given a communal colour thus giving the opposite result of what the Bill intends to achieve,” he opined.
The Gujarat Chief Minister categorically maintained that this is an issue under the State list and that if it is something that would have to be implemented by the State Government then it should be legislated by the State Government. He added that if there is something the Centre wishes to share it is free to prepare a “Model Bill” and circulate it among the State Governments for their consideration.