Notes on the anti-communal violence bill

The Bill aspires to discourage and/or prevent communal violence from occurring with any frequency, and aspires to do so with a shortening of the time required for a judicial review of the cases involved—perhaps similar in principle to the awarding of compensation to victims of a nuclear fallout irrespective of how the accident was actuated.

The postulations of the Bill are, rightfully, centered around its definition of communal violence: "an act that destroys the secular fabric of the nation." In this regard, the Bill could be rendered toothless in cases of violence against Muslims or Christians selectively because, as a matter of principle, the Bill essentially must recognize the religious minorities to recognize the violence against the them.

An important point of concern is the role of state officials in instigating mobs as well as turning a blind eye toward crimes committed thereby: perhaps it would be more sensible to tighten the existing laws and make sure that where the complicity of a statesman is suspected, it is reviewed by the judiciary. It only seems like the NAC is dancing around that weakness.

Being a signatory of the Convention Against Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, India must ensure that any new proposed law that concerns itself with kidnapping, murder and/or civilian torture abides by the stipulations of the Convention. However, if the Bill comes into force, it will allow for an opportunity to bypass the following requirement of the Convention:

"... respect minimum legal standards around the deprivation of liberty, including the right for imprisonment to be challenged before the courts."

In the process of providing due compensation for the victims of communal violence, the Bill must obviously also ensure that it guards against their immense vulnerability in the aftermath of the incidents. However, contrary to the seeming necessities, the Bill demands that any statements made by any informants must be made under oath in the presence of a magistrate.

Another point of contention is that, in order to determine the circumstances surrounding each act of violence, a police officer is to be dispatched to visit the victim, make a note of all the details, and then arrange for a transfer to a relief camp before initiating legal proceedings. Instead of waiting for all these to be provisioned by a separate bill, it would be much easier simply to have a police officer question the victims, file an FIR and go ahead with the filing of a case in the competent jurisdiction.

While the Bill seems to be technically strutted, it fails in principle: if the NAC or the UPA wanted to prevent communal violence, why attempt to effect a law whose positions already are represented in the Indian Constitution as well as in the Indian Penal Code? It is the law enforcement arm of the government that needs revamping, not the jurisprudential arm. And involving civil societies in the drafting of the Bill would also be a good idea.