By Rehan Ansari, TwoCircles.net,
Mumbai: “Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations), 2011 bill is fairly good and far better than its earlier counterpart of 2005 and we should support the bill,” exclaimed Retd. Justice Hosbet Suresh, member of the advisory group constituted by the National Advisory Council.
Rejecting the objections of the BJP he added, “If the minority community indulges in violence, the IPC (Indian Penal Code) applies very strongly.” He was speaking in a consultation meeting on the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) 2011 organised by the All India Secular Forum on Monday in Mumbai.
L-R- Saumya uma, Justice H.Suresh, Irfan Engineer, Asghar Ali Engineer
The National Advisory Council, NAC, has put the bill on its website for the suggestions and grievances from the civil society till 10th June, 2011.
The speakers included other two members of the advisory group constituted by the NAC – Asghar Ali Engineer and Saumya Uma along with Mohammed Anees of the Movement for Peace and Justice (MPJ), and Advocate Vijay Hiremath. The speakers also noted the areas where the improvisations were needed.
Comparing with the earlier bill, Mohammed Anees appreciated the indictment of the word ‘targeted violence’ which includes sexual violence. He said, “Incitement or hate speech as an offence, torture from public servants, concept of Commanding Responsibility, Autonomous body like National Authority and most importantly accountability of public officials are the important and major shifts from the earlier draft.”
Saumya Uma, legal expert, has some grave concerns about the definition of ‘targeted violence’ where the word secular fabric is subjective to define. Inclusion of Internal Disturbances is a chocker for her. She said, “The proposed law gives enhanced power to the state which is against our basic recommendations. Overdependence on national and state authorities, requiring prior sanctions for action against police officials, no reference to sexual assault act, week and inadequate witness protection provisions are some of the areas that need improvisations” Saumya recommended.
Saumya was also critical of the ‘relief and compensation to the victims’ clause. She said, “It’s the government responsibility to provide adequate relief to the victims whereas the proposed bill only confers the right to approach the National Authority.” She also advocated for the rehabilitation of the victims on their homeland and not on any isolated resettlement site.
Talking about the Procedure, Evidence & Sentencing in the proposed bill, Adv. Vijay Hiremath, criminal lawyer, dug out some loopholes. He said, “Translation copy to the complainants must be provided immediately and not after 7 days as the law proposes. Making statement of witness compulsorily under section164 is also not recommended because unavailability of Magistrate will delay the process of justice.”
Adv. Vijay also criticized the police custody for 30 days and 180 days for filing chargesheet. He also recommended time-bound hearing by the court to speed up the process of justice.