By Gyan Pathak
The passage of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019 in the Lok Sabha amidst walk out of the opposition exposes the mentality of hunger for absolute power rather than intention of eradication of the mentality of violence in individuals. The bill aims at grabbing the power of branding an individual a ‘terrorist’ and of seizing the properties of the people and organizations which are to be labelled as such by the government in power. Nothing beyond it.
The provisions in the bill will therefore fail in achieving their real objectives because of the lack of insight about terrorism it betrays, and their possible misuse notwithstanding the assurance of ‘no-misuse’ given by our Home Minister Amit Shah. The assurance may not hold good beyond his tenure, and he cannot take guarantee on behalf of all officers either. We have already seen misuse of several draconian laws in arrests of poets, writers, artists, and intellectuals who happened to be critical about the government policies and actions in general, and irrational approach in tackling terrorism in particular. Moreover, his intention is doubtful, for the very simple reason of his being large-tongued on the issue of national security, especially terrorism, when the incidents are mounting and NIA, the very institution created to tackle terrorism, is operating in a partisan manner.
It has come to light even during debate in the parliament that NIA is not having sufficient strength. One or the reasons given for amending the act by Union Minister of State for Home Affairs G Kishan Reddy was precisely that. He said that NIA is facing a shortage of DSPs, and the number of cases has increased significantly. Presently NIA has 29 DSPs against 57 sanctioned posts and 90 inspectors against 106 sanctioned posts. It clearly shows how committed our large-tongued leaders are on the issue of terrorism. The expression ‘cases has increased significantly’ exposes the failure of the government in controlling it, and ‘shortage of DSPs’ and inspectors while cases are increasing is just a callousness on the part of the government who is not interested in appointing sufficient number of officials to tackle terrorism. Why government allowed the weakening of the NIA in its strength? And why does it now wants only more and sharper teeth for arresting individuals and seizing property? More and sharper teeth without a strong body may not be effective.
Moreover, this cannot be a sufficient reason for an amendment in a law. If you have shortage of DSPs, the best option is to appoint in sufficient numbers, so that the ever increasing cases of terror can be investigated properly and competently in shortest possible time and the terrorists brought to book. Since, under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), officers of the rank not below the rank of DSP can investigate the terror incidents, the government has been failing in timely investigation and prosecution due to lack of DSPs. Government should not be allowed to veil its dismal performance by resorting to legal amendment to give power of investigation to the junior inspectors. It would be like giving powers to the nurses to operate on a patient in place of surgeons by giving a logic of severe shortage of surgeons and doctors. You have numbers in parliament and therefore you can legislate so on the numerical strength, but it would not be wisdom, and could not be done so without compromising with the quality of investigation. Further, you can later come with a logic that further legislation is required to give power of investigation to even more junior officers since we do not have sufficient number of inspectors. There is no end to such illogic.
The matter does not end here because it involves equality before law. By the present amendment a discrepancy will crop up. A terror incident can be investigated by inspectors of NIA, but cannot be investigated by the officers of the same rank of the state police. If an inspector is found to be competent officer to investigate terror, then all inspectors should be empowered on the same logic that ours state’s police too do not have sufficient number of DSPs. Why the Union Government should have more differential powers than that of the state governments? It has multifold implications.
After the revelation of the Minister in the parliament, it is clear that the investigations of terror incidents and seizures of properties of terrorists are delayed due to shortages of personnel in the NIA. However, while giving rational of amendment regarding seizure of property, the delay was attributed to a procedure under which NIA needed prior approval of the state’s DGP. There will be no taker of the logic, except a naïve. It may be theoretically correct, but we do not have any reported incident of delaying seizure of property by any DGP or any state in the country. Secondly, if our Home Minister is correct, then there is lack of coordination between the NIA and state police, which is more serious a matter. At this point also, we do not have any reported case of non-cooperation by any DGP or absence of coordination, or delay on their part. Why should then there be a legislation to bypass the DGP of the state concerned, the citizens of which are sufferer of the terror incidents? This amendment is also unwarranted, and is a violation of the federal structure of the country.
Then there is a larger issue involved in having such draconian laws in the country under which a citizen can be accused of terrorism without giving him the status of an accused. Why government should have power to simply declare a person a terrorist, and then detain him not as an accused but as a detenu. It is simply injustice infringing upon the birthright of a person to have freedom to life and expression. Governments must have courage to give a person the right of an accused under law if he is accused of certain criminal act and put behind bar. The mindset of making a person simply a detenu is in itself an act of terror of the government power. It may terrorize the well intentioned people who believe in eradication of terrorism but do not agree with the line which the government pursues, or wants to pursue. Expression of differing opinions should not be the basis of branding them terrorists of various shades, such as an urban terrorist, a terrorist intellectual, a terrorist poet, a terrorist writer, a terrorist artist and so on. (IPA Service)
