Title: Secular Arjun
passed UP-type religion bill in '84
Author: Shubhabrata
Bhattacharya
Publication: The Asian
Age
Date: April 11, 2000
The most self-proclaimed
secular Congress leader, Mr Arjun Singh, had as chief minister of Madhya
Pradesh in 1984 presided over the passing of a legislation similar to the
one piloted by Uttar Pradesh's RSS chief minister, Mr Ram Prakash Gupta.
The Uttar Pradesh Regulation
of Public Religious Buildings and Places Bill was passed by both Houses
of the Uttar Pradesh Legislature in January, and is currently awaiting
the President's nod following the decision of governor Suraj Bhan to refer
the matter to Rashtrapati Bhavan for assent.
The NDA government at
the Centre, on whose aid and advice the President is supposed to make up
his mind, is treading softly. There is confusion in the BJP. However, the
stand-off within the Congress is more complex.
Mrs Sonia Gandhi wrote
to the President recently asking him to withhold assent. Observers say
that her letter to the President was yet another ill-advised move, which
she took on the nudging of the advisers who had caused her embarrassment
in the recent Rajya Sabha nominations and had also been responsible for
her flip-flop on Bihar recently and on Bansi Lal-ruled Haryana last year.
It is these advisers who asked her to quote the figure of "272" outside
Rashtrapati Bhavan following the one-vote defeat of the Atal Behari Vajpaye
government last year.
Following the decision
of the RSS-dominated Uttar Pradesh government to enact the legislation
on the plea of curbing ISI activity on the border with Nepal, a hullabaloo
was raised in a meeting of the Congress Working Committee by none other
than Mr Arjun Singh. When it was pointed out that a similar legislation
existed in his home state, Madhya Pradesh, sources in the CWC say Mr Singh
feigned ignorance. The fact that the Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Dharmik
Bhavan Tatha Sthan Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1984, was enacted during his tenure
as chief minister was mulled over.
The first legislation
on these lines was the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act, 1954.
That year Rajasthan was ruled by the late Jai Narain Vyas initially, and
later by the late Mohan Lal Sukhadia. Perhaps the developments in Somnath
had influenced the lawmakers.
The question today is
that if Mrs Sonia Gandhi feels that the UP bill should not receive the
President's assent, then merely suggesting changes to the Rajasthan and
Madhya Pradesh acts may not be enough. Incidentally, the Congress is in
power in both the states even now. All that is required is that ordinances
be recommended to the respective governors in Jaipur and Bhopal to repeal
these laws. A direction in this matter from Mrs Sonia Gandhi to Mr Digvijay
Singh and Mr Ashok Gehlot preceding her letter to President K.R. Narayanan
perhaps could have been a more effective way of driving the point home.
Samajwadi Party leader
Mulayam Singh Yadav has gone to town trumpeting the Rajasthan and MP legislation
to tell the minorities in UP that what the RSS is doing in their state
while in power had been done by the Congress in the neighbouring states
years ago.
An analysis of the salient
points of the UP bill, which is yet to become law thanks to the refusal
of governor Suraj Bhan (who in addition to the RSS, has also an Arya Samaji
background - perhaps that is the reason for his cautious approach) shows
that the proposed law is less stringent than the existing laws in Rajasthan
and MP.
Examples:
* The Rajasthan law in
Section 5 and the Madhya Pradesh law in Section 3 are all-encompassing
and cover all buildings, even those which are already in use. The Uttar
Pradesh law in Section 3 has a saving clause and does not apply to buildings
used for a religious purse before the commencement of the act.
* The Rajasthan law in
Section 5 and the Madhya Pradesh law in Section 3 both also deal with what
is called a temporary religious place. In other words, a place used for
a religious function like Jagarata or a Katha etc. would be covered by
these sections. The Uttar Pradesh bill does not envisage to cover
any temporary religious activity.
* In the Rajasthan
law in Section 7 and Madhya Pradesh act Section 5, while dealing with the
proceedings for the grants of permission by the collectors, the collector
has been given sweeping power and no curbs have been put on his power to
permit or deny. In the Uttar Pradesh bill in Section 5, upon the other
hand, the district magistrate is bound not to grant permission under the
following conditions:
(i) It is necessary so
to do in the interest of public order, morality and health.
(ii) It will interfere
with the rights of any other religious denomination freely to profess and
practise religion or to manage its own affairs in the matter or religion.
(iii) The use of the
building or place, applied for, is forbidden by any law or is such, as
would, if permitted, defeat the provision of any law.
* The Uttar Pradesh bill
makes a departure from the older acts with the inclusion of a separate
section dealing with preventive measures. In Section 6 the district magistrate
can take preventive action on receiving information. The section also states
that the provisions of Sections 134, 134, 136, 138 and 142 of the Code
of Criminal Procedures, 1973, shall apply to the proceeding under the section.
* The punishment envisaged
under both the Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh acts are imprisonment upto
three months or a fine of Rs 500, or both. In the Uttar Pradesh bill, the
punishments are imprisonment of upto one year and fine of Rs 5,000, or
both.
Like the Rajasthan and
Madhya Pradesh laws, the Uttar Pradesh legislation bars the jurisdiction
of the courts.
UP governor Suraj Bhan
had referred the legislation for the President's assent on February 2.
While a political storm is blowing over the issue, it is understood that
the Union government has sought the advice of the ministries of external
affairs, urban development, human resources development, the department
of legislative affairs, the department of legal affairs and the internal
security wing of the home ministry. As the combined wisdom of these ministries
and departments has not emerged, no aid and advice is forthcoming from
the NDA Cabinet for the President of India. Maybe the NDA is more cautious
on the issue than the Congress.
