Author: Sudhanshu Mishra
Publication: The Telegraph
Date: April 2, 2003
URL: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1030402/asp/nation/story_1831785.asp
The Congress, which opposed the
anti-terror law in Delhi, is pushing a Bill in Rajasthan that is more stringent
than the central legislation.
The Bill, when enacted, will allow
detention of a person for one year without trial, unlike the Prevention
of Terrorism Act that allows a detainee to seek bail after six months of
detention.
The Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social
Activities Bill 2003 was introduced in the Assembly yesterday by home minister
Gulab Singh Shaktawat without any objection from any party.
The Bill, once passed into law,
will authorise the state to put a person in preventive detention up to
one year if the district administration considers him or her "dangerous"
to the maintenance of public order.
It "provides for preventive detention
of bootleggers, dangerous persons, drug offenders and immoral traffic offenders
and property grabbers for preventing their anti-social and dangerous activities
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order".
Although today was the last day
of the Assembly's budget session, the passage of the Bill was not mentioned
in the list of business for the day. The state appeared to be willing to
adopt the Bill later, or maybe through an Ordinance. The draft Bill shows
it was introduced in the House according to the Governor's wish.
According to the statement of objects
and reasons for the Bill, enactment of a special law was considered necessary
because the existing provisions of the National Security Act 1980, the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and the Foreign Exchange
Management Act 1999 were insufficient to detain such persons as mentioned
in the Bill.
The Bill also provides for authorising
district collectors to arrest and detain such a person, who will be told
within seven days the reasons for his detention so he can appeal before
the state government. But the Bill does not require the authority concerned
to disclose any fact that it considers to be against public interest. So
the Bill gives enormous latitude to district authorities.
According to the Bill, the state
would, whenever necessary, set up one or more advisory boards for the implementation
of the Act. Such a board would comprise a sitting or a retired high court
judge as chairman and two other members, also sitting or retired judges
or who are qualified under the Constitution to be appointed a high court
judge.
The detainee, however, will not
be entitled to engage an advocate to appear for him before the advisory
board. The state, on the basis of the board's recommendations, would decide
the period of detention. The Bill authorises the state to release the detainee
before the completion of the detention period.
Several states already have similar
legislations, such as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act.
The Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee government in Bengal had wanted to enact a
similar law but backed out in the face of opposition from within the ruling
combine itself.
