By IANS,
Ahmedabad : The Gujarat assembly Friday adopted a resolution urging President Pratibha Patil to intervene with the central government to hasten the process of turning the long-pending anti-terror legislation Gujcoc bill into an act.
Moving the resolution, Home Minister Amit Shah said that since Gujarat was a coastal state terrorist organisations were taking advantage and threatening the state.
He said the assembly had passed the Gujarat Control of Organised Crime (Gujcoc) bill in 2003. It was re-sent to the president with revision on June 19, 2004. After that the chief minister had written several letters to get presidential nod to the bill but nothing came of it.
Congress MLAs, reacted sharply and accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of “playing politics” with Gujcoc and Pota after tabling of the resolution. Dhaboi MLA and state Congress chief Siddharth Patel said when the bill was passed the first time and sent to the central government, the NDA was then ruling the country. “The NDA had slept over the bill for two years and, therefore, it is wrong to blame the Congress for the delay,” he said.
To this Amit Shah said when Maharashtra passed the MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act), the central government had asked for amendments in two of its sections which was complied with. The central government then made it an act. Likewise in the Gujcoc case too the centre had advised for two amendments and the state had then sent an amended version of the bill to the centre. But before the central government could make it an act there was change of government and the Congress-led UPA came to power “which is playing politics over passing of the Gujcoc bill”, he said.
In the hour-long discussion over the resolution, Congress MLA Arjun Modhwadia raising a point of order contended that the matter could not be discussed as it was sub judice. This was seconded by Leader of the Opposition Shaktisinh Gohil.
However, Health Minister Jaynarayan Vyas and Home Minister Amit Shah moved the resolution contending that the matter has not been admitted by the high court and so it cannot be called sub judice.