A controversial Anti-Terror Bill, passed by the Gujarat Assembly, but twice rejected by the previous UPA government, has been cleared by the Narendra Modi government and sent to the President for his assent.
The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime (GCTOC) Bill 2015, which has been hanging fire since Modi, as Gujarat Chief Minister first introduced it in 2003, has been sent to President Pranab Mukherjee for his assent, a Home Ministry official said. The Bill provides for <g data-gr-id="24">admissibility</g> of evidence collected through interception of cellphone calls of an accused or through confessions made before an investigating officer, in a court of law.
In July, the Modi government at the Centre had sent back the controversial Bill to the state government, asking it to clarify on certain issues raised by the Ministry of Information and Technology (IT). The IT Ministry had objected to a provision in the Bill, which allows authorisation of interception of telephonic conversations and their admissibility as evidence before a court of law.
The Gujarat government had strongly rebutted the objections raised by the Ministry of IT. In its reply, the state government cited the subjects mentioned in the ‘concurrent list’, under which the Centre and the state share the responsibility of formulating ‘criminal law and criminal procedure’. The Central government has given its consent to the provision of extension of time limit for filing of charge-sheet from 90 to 180 days, after consultation with other Central ministries.
In March, the Gujarat Assembly had passed the stringent Bill retaining controversial provisions that had twice led to a previous such Bill being rejected by the President. The Bill was first rejected by then President APJ Abdul Kalam in 2004, demanding that the clause relating to the interception of communication be removed. It was again rejected when Pratibha Patil was the President.
On both the occasions, the then UPA government recommended to the President for the rejection of the Bill, saying that several provisions of the GCTOC were not in conformity of the Central law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.