The Rajasthan government under the leadership of Vasundhara Raje on Monday had tabled Criminal Laws (Rajasthan Amendment) Bill in the assembly.
The ordinance presented in the Rajasthan assembly no more allows the courts from taking up private complaints against both serving and former judges, magistrates and public servants in the state for on-duty action without prior sanction from the government. The ordinance also bars the media from naming any judge or public servant being investigated or reporting the accusations until prior permission from the government.
The outnumbered Congress had staged a walkout on Monday opposing the bill and the house was then adjourned for the day. Following the walkout, Rajasthan Congress president Sachin Pilot and several party leaders took out a march against the state governments criminal laws amendment bill and were detained by the police later. Senior BJP leader Ghanshyam Tiwari also walked out in protest of the bill.
Jaipur: Congress leaders hold protest outside state assembly against Criminal Laws (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance. pic.twitter.com/R6kdX82Bon
— ANI (@ANI) October 23, 2017
Following severe opposition and two public interest litigations (PILs) and one writ petition filed in the Rajasthan high court against the ordinance Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje on Monday evening had called four of her senior ministers and state BJP chief Ashok Parnami to the CM’s house to discuss and rethink on the ordinance which the media and the opposition had termed as “draconian” and “ill-fated”.
According to the sources, Raje earlier on Monday evening had also met with senior bureaucrats and asked them to rework on the ordinance.
After a series of meeting with the BJP officials and senior members, Vasundhara Raje on Tuesday referred the legislation to a select committee of the assembly. The committee will be submitting its report regarding the ordinance in the next session.
A petition filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI) has asked the Centre to clarify whether it had granted prior permission to the Rajasthan government to promulgate the Criminal Laws (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance, 2017. The application was filed by the lawyer, activist Hemant Kumar with the prime minister’s office.
Responding to the petition under the RTI, query, Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said that the ordinance was meant to prevent fake complaints and it was backed by the Narendra modi government at the centre.
Hemant Kumar has requested the PMO to reveal “the entire information regarding the approval or permission as granted by the central government, if any, to the Rajasthan government for the latter promulgation of Criminal Laws (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance, 2017.”
Kumar argued that as the ordinance tabled by the Rajasthan government is trying to amend both the CrPC and Indian Penal Code (IPC) albeit within the state of Rajasthan, therefore prior approval of the Centre is necessary as per the Article 254(2). He said that as the ordinance, even if only for a period of 180 days, also amends the duly enacted law, hence before the governor promulgated the ordinance, it had to be sent to the center seeking its permission by the Rajasthan government.
The advocate also said that “it was necessary to examine in the present case if the Rajasthan government had received the “necessary sanction from the president of India as required under the relevant provisions of the constitution for promulgation of Criminal Laws (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance, 2017.”
In the petition filed by Kumar on 21 Oct, he also questioned as to why the ordinance came out in public domain just a couple of days prior to the state assembly session, while the ordinance got promulgated by the governor of Rajasthan on September 6? He also raised the question on the delay in making the ordinance public asking that was the Rajasthan government doubtful about the outcome of the promulgation as Abha Singh, a noted advocate-activist of Mumbai had challenged a similar sort of law as enacted by the state of Maharashtra before the Bombay high court, in Sep when Rajasthan government issued the ordinance on 6 Sep?
He also said that “It seems that Vasundhara dispensation might have borrowed the idea for promulgating such ordinance from Devendra Fadnavis-led BJP dispensation in Maharashtra which, in Jun 2015, gave its nod to Code of Criminal Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Bill, 2015.”
Similar kind of act is in force in Maharashtra. The bill was passed in the Maharashtra assembly and was then sent to the centre and got the nod from the president in Aug 2016.
Although the Maharashtrian government only made a few amendments Section(s) 156 and Section 190, which made changes only in the CrPC, unlike the Rajasthan government. Hemant Kumar underlining the difference between the Rajasthan and the Maharastra bill said that “Maharashtra had not promulgated any ordinance before tabling the Bill and ensuring its passage in the House as has been done by Rajasthan. Moreover, Maharashtra only amended the CrPC to a limited extent incorporating amendments in only Section(s) 156 and Section 190 in it by providing for a prior requirement of necessary sanction from appropriate sanctioning authority in respect of public servants.”
Another difference that he pointed out in the two bills is that while The Criminal Laws (Rajasthan Amendment) Bill, 2017 also bars any action or complaints against working or retired magistrates without sanction from the state government, nothing was mentioned about the magistrates in the Maharashtra bill.
He further underlined that while the Maharastra bill prescribed a period of 90 days for the sanctioning authority to decide on granting sanction or otherwise on the investigation, the Rajasthan bill mentions a period of 180 days.
Another major difference pointed out by Kumar between both bills is that Maharastra bill had not imposed any bars on the media, while Rajasthan government acting oddly have also ordered a gag on the media, not allowing it to name any judge or public servant being investigated or reporting the accusations until prior permission from the government.
The advocated also added that “unlike Rajasthan, which has incorporated a new section – Section 228B – for prescribing a maximum jail term of two years for anyone including media groups who via reporting or otherwise tend to disclose the identity of such errant public servant pending grant of sanction, the Maharashtra law had no such provision.”
Hemant Kumar also informed that he had also filed an RTI application with the president’s secretariat seeking clarification as to if the proposal by the Rajasthan government had got sanction from the centre and if yes, on what grounds.
Adding more details against the wrong move of the Rajasthan government, Hemant said that in May 2017, the official website of the Union home ministry affirmed that the centre had cleared the CrPC (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance, however, nothing of the ordinance was mentioned on the official website of Rajasthan government or on the state assembly’s portal. “So amidst all this, can one speculate that the state of Rajasthan has rather got necessary sanction from the Centre for promulgation of CrPC (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 perhaps on the lines of Maharashtra law,” he said