|
The writer is Project Coordinator, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi. The Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act is draconian in nature and scope. It is said that the Act would help curb the Naxalite menace. However, a legislation which would curtail civil liberties giving scope for large-scale misuse is not acceptable.
The legislation has defined unlawful activities in ambiguous terms, curtailing freedom of speech and expression. All those who would voice an opinion contrary to government policies may fall within its ambit as media persons, lawyers, NGOs, trade unionists or even teachers and doctors. Under the Act, the government need not disclose the reasons for declaring an organisation unlawful for whatever period it may deem fit in public interest. Though there is scope for a yearly review, there is no mention that this process will be transparent. The reference of an Advisory Board gives some assurance to the ordinary citizen who maybe falsely implicated. But where will this Board be established? Care is also needed to make this Board accessible to organisations to place their cases in a free and fair manner without being intimidated by government agencies. In a state like Chhattisgarh, it is necessary to provide a fair and impartial face to the Board as this will be the only appeal in the whole system. Keeping in view the democratic aspirations of the people, a member from the Human Rights Commission, the Women's Commission or the SC/ST Commission should be included in it. This should not be seen as a token gesture but as an important voice to protect people from harassment and illegal orders issued by the District Magistrates. It is extremely worrisome to read that the Act would penalise all those who would contribute to the "unlawful organisation". Experience suggests that often audiences at rallies have been held captive through threat or by use of force to attend meetings, feed the cadres and give protection money making the unsuspecting defenseless citizens to become the informers, sympathisers or even "protectors" in the eyes of the law enforcement agencies making them further vulnerable. The Act needs to provide scope for the executive to understand the socio-economic milieu which leads people to become sympathisers. Vagueness in the law will provide the police further opportunities to complete unrealistic targets. Of serious concern is the decision of sending an officer under this law to search money transactions or seize and forfeit it only under the District Magistrate's directive leaving scope for threat, corruption and gross misuse. POTA was severely criticised under a similar clause. Violence of any form should be condemned but dealing with voice of opposition to government policies need not be curtailed through draconian laws. This article submitted by Swati Kapoor, Media and Communications Unit - CHRI. Visit http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/ for more info. |
Tibetan's Voice Of Struggle
