OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DRAFT 'PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE (ACCE SS TO JUSTICE AND REPARATIONS) BILL' 2011

To : Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, National Advisory Council You must be quite aware of the 'Prevention Of Communal and Targeted Violence (Ac cess To Justice and Reparations)' bill, drafted by the National Advisory Council (NAC), which has been put up in the public domain for citizen's submissions and feedback. Having carefully studied the bill and discussed and deliberated the p ros and cons of the draft with the various members of the civil society we have the following objections and suggestions to the bill in it's current shape. In Chapter 1, section 3.a, the definition provided for the term group remains li mited only to the few sections of the societies, like the religious and linguist ic minorities. This definition has the effect of placing the vast majority of th e society outside the purview and protection of this bill. Also, this provision is in violation of the fundamental right to Equality (Art 14) enshrined in our c onstitution. Hence we demand that this definition be modified to be more inclusi ve and cover all sections of the society without any discrimination and bias. In Chapter 2, section 8, the all encompasing definition of hate propaganda might have many hazardous side-effects, like curtailing an individual's freedom of ex pression or severe self censorship by the media houses. These actions will inevi tably come at the cost of healthy criticism and thought that is much needed in o ur societies and nation at large. Therefore, we urge that unless a direct causal relationship is established between the material and the act of violence the ac t to publishing or communicating the material must not be labelled as hate propa ganda. In Chapter 3, section 20, the bill defines an act of communal and targeted viole nce to contitute an internal disturbance under Art 355 and empowers the Central Government to take further action. The honourable Supreme court in the S.R.Bomma i Vs Union of India case has ruled that the term internal disturbance in Art 355 must be deemed to be interpreted as armed rebellion in the context of imposing an emergency. Federalism being one of the founding stones of our national polity we demand that the NAC clarify this point in it's draft and bring it in harmony with the rules and procedures already laid out by the Supreme Court. This would avoid any confrontation between the Union and the States on this matter on a la ter date and prevent the law from being misused for political objectives. It wou ld be wise to do away with this unnecessary detail altogether. In Chapter 4, section 23.2.b, the proposal to exclude individuals who have exhib ited bias against any group is not sufficiently qualified and vague. It can be v ariously interpreted to keep many capable individuals away from the proposed aut hority by vested interests. Hence we suggest that this provision be completely d ropped. In Chapter 4, section 25.2, the Members of the Parliament who play an important role in appointing the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and the Members do not play any role in their removal process. Parliament as a body has the power to introd uce removal proceedings against many officers holding Constitutional posts. To e nsure that the representatives of the people have the power to remove the member s from the authority the Parliament must be allowed to initiate proceedings agai nst the members of the proposed authority. In Chapter 6, section 72, this provision provides for compulsory judicial inquir y into every act of communal violence apart from the police inquiry. It is commo n knowledge how stretched our Judiciary is and having two inquiries into every a ct of violation might not be the best way of spendign these scarce resources. Th erefore we request that more thought be put into this proposal and it be re-exam

ined. In Chapter 6, section74.1 and section 74.2, these both provisions provide excell ent opportunities to be misuse the law and target innocent individuals instead o f nabbing the real cuplrits. These provisions, turn the assumption of innocence, which is the norm, on it's head. The section 8, of the draft bill which defines hate propoganda is in itself very vague (as already pointed out). To assume a p erson indulging in such as act is guilty would tantamount to rendering the accus ed helpless without giving him a chance to defense. These draconian provisions w ould indeed help achieve better conviction rates but do not serve the cause of j ustice. Therefore we demand that these provisions be dropped. These are some of the important concerns we have about the current draft release d by the NAC. We hope that the NAC will consider all our demands favorably and i ncorporate the changes to their next version. We also suggest that the NAC engag e the various cross-sections of the society by holding consultations. This would ensure that the sections of the society and opinion that are currently unrepres ented in the NAC would not be rendered voiceless. We hope the NAC will respect the opinion of the citizens of this country and acc ommodate thier suggestions in the future drafts of the bill.