Fourth time lucky for vexed Guj terror Bill?
1 April 2015 11:50 PM GMT
The Bill had been earlier returned by the President thrice to the state government for reconsideration, when Narendra Modi was Chief Minister.
The Bill, on Tuesday was passed in the state Assembly amid stiff resistance from opposition Congress, which walked out of the House over its controversial provisions, including permission to the police to intercept and record telephonic conversations and submit them in court as evidence.
However, the rechristened legislation has retained controversial provisions like that of empowering of the police to tap telephonic conversations and submit them in court as evidence.
The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime (GCTOC) Bill 2015, which also makes confessions made before police admissible in court and extends the period of probe from the stipulated 90 days to 180 days, before the filing of chargesheet, was approved by a majority vote.
The first version of the proposal was sent to the Centre in 2004, when Narendra Modi was Chief Minister; the Union government, headed by the BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee had sent it back, asking for major changes. The coalition government led by the Congress had also objected to later versions of the Bill.
Now that Narendra Modi has become Prime Minister with full majority at the Centre, the Anandiben Patel government in Gujarat is hopeful of getting presidential assent shortly. Making a strong case for the new Bill, Rajanikant Patel, minister of state (MOS), Home in Gujarat government said: “Terrorism knows no national boundaries and is fuelled by illegal wealth generation by contract killing, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money economic offence such as running of the ponzi schemes or the multi-level marketing schemes with a view to defraud the people for obtaining the monetary benefits or large scale organised betting in any form, cyber crimes, etc. The illegal wealth and black money generated by organised crime is huge and has serious adverse effects on economy.”
Patel also said: “It is noticed that the organised criminal syndicates make extensive use of wire and oral communications in their criminal activities. The interception of such communications to obtain evidence of the commission of crimes or to prevent the commission thereof is inevitable and an indispensable aid to law enforcement and administration of justice.’’ Leader of opposition (LOP) Shankarsinh Vaghela, while opposing the Bill said: “I know this will be passed by majority but we are against this Bill. If this government is so concerned about the safety of Gujarat, why they did not bring it while they were in power during Vajpayee’s seven-year tenure?”
Former President APJ Abdul Kalam had in 2004 objected to the particular section-14 (telephonic interception as evidence) and returned the Bill to the Modi government to remove the clause.
The Bill was again introduced on Tuesday in the House by minister of State for Home Rajnikant Patel, after which a long debate took place with the Opposition Congress demanding the removal of controversial sections.
The Bill, on Tuesday was passed in the state Assembly amid stiff resistance from opposition Congress, which walked out of the House over its controversial provisions, including permission to the police to intercept and record telephonic conversations and submit them in court as evidence.
However, the rechristened legislation has retained controversial provisions like that of empowering of the police to tap telephonic conversations and submit them in court as evidence.
The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime (GCTOC) Bill 2015, which also makes confessions made before police admissible in court and extends the period of probe from the stipulated 90 days to 180 days, before the filing of chargesheet, was approved by a majority vote.
The first version of the proposal was sent to the Centre in 2004, when Narendra Modi was Chief Minister; the Union government, headed by the BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee had sent it back, asking for major changes. The coalition government led by the Congress had also objected to later versions of the Bill.
Now that Narendra Modi has become Prime Minister with full majority at the Centre, the Anandiben Patel government in Gujarat is hopeful of getting presidential assent shortly. Making a strong case for the new Bill, Rajanikant Patel, minister of state (MOS), Home in Gujarat government said: “Terrorism knows no national boundaries and is fuelled by illegal wealth generation by contract killing, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money economic offence such as running of the ponzi schemes or the multi-level marketing schemes with a view to defraud the people for obtaining the monetary benefits or large scale organised betting in any form, cyber crimes, etc. The illegal wealth and black money generated by organised crime is huge and has serious adverse effects on economy.”
Patel also said: “It is noticed that the organised criminal syndicates make extensive use of wire and oral communications in their criminal activities. The interception of such communications to obtain evidence of the commission of crimes or to prevent the commission thereof is inevitable and an indispensable aid to law enforcement and administration of justice.’’ Leader of opposition (LOP) Shankarsinh Vaghela, while opposing the Bill said: “I know this will be passed by majority but we are against this Bill. If this government is so concerned about the safety of Gujarat, why they did not bring it while they were in power during Vajpayee’s seven-year tenure?”
Former President APJ Abdul Kalam had in 2004 objected to the particular section-14 (telephonic interception as evidence) and returned the Bill to the Modi government to remove the clause.
The Bill was again introduced on Tuesday in the House by minister of State for Home Rajnikant Patel, after which a long debate took place with the Opposition Congress demanding the removal of controversial sections.
Next Story
