There may be many a slip before the Gujarat Control of Organised Crime (Gujcoc) (Amended) Bill, 2003, passed in the State Assembly on Wednesday, becomes an Act, especially with the new government at the Centre promising to repeal Pota.
Framed on the lines of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999, it may be the Modi government’s riposte to the Centre, but the birth pangs began showing when President Kalam directed the deletions of all sections pertaining to communication interception, when the NDA was still in power at the Centre.
Unlike MCOCA, whose raison d’etre is explained as tackling organised crime "fuelled by illegal wealth generated by contract killing, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering, etc," Gujcoc does not bother to explain what comprises organised crime.
It does even bother explaining why Gujarat, which the Modi government recently claimed, had a low crime rate, required such a stringent law now.
Very bluntly, the Bill begins with "to make special provisions for prevention and control of, and for coping with criminal activity by organised crime syndicate or gang, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."
Sections pertaining to interception were also scrapped from MCOCA following a petition in the Mumbai High Court in the case involving film financier Bharat Shah. The Gujcoc Bill in its new ‘avatar’, too, is without these sections.
Further, in sections referring to harbouring of criminals and holding property acquired from the said crime, Pota appears more compassionate than Gujcoc!
For example, while the minimum imprisonment for harbouring a terrorist under Pota was three years, in the case of Gujcoc it is five years for harbouring a member of an organised crime syndicate. Besides, while Pota distinguishes between voluntary and forcible harbouring, Gujcoc has done away with it.
Pota also clarifies (which Gujcoc does not) that the sub-section on harbourers shall not apply to any case in which the harbouring is done by the husband or wife of the offender.
Pota says "Whoever knowingly holds any property derived or obtained from commission of any terrorist act or has been acquired through the terrorist funds shall be punishable…", whereas Gujcoc does not mention the term ‘knowingly’.
Gujcoc reads much like Pota, with only ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist organisation’ being replaced by ‘organised crime’ and ‘organised crime syndicate’.
Post deletions of 12 sections pertaining to interception of communication and its treatment as evidence, Gujcoc’s section 27, like Pota, allows a confessional statement by an accused before an officer not below the rank of superintendent of police, to be admitted in court for trial, but is being severely opposed. Says Gujarat High Court lawyer, Mukul Sinha, "the fact that they were eager to enact this law shows that it might be misused, just like Pota."
To differentiate their scope, Inspector-General of police of the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), Vipul Vijoy Singh says, "people involved in terrorist activities usually advocate some ideology and are not mercenary, while the motive in organised crime is money, but now underworld dons like Dawood Ibrahim have begun supporting terrorist organisations."
Vadodara-based rights activist, Rohit Prajapati refers to the attitude of the Gujarat government during the 2002 riots and says, "I have a strong feeling that in the name of countering "terrorism" the state is becoming a terrorist state by looking for indiscriminate power in its hands."
According to him, the Gujcoc Bill will "legalise the state terrorism."
Taken From The Times of India (Source)
Framed on the lines of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999, it may be the Modi government’s riposte to the Centre, but the birth pangs began showing when President Kalam directed the deletions of all sections pertaining to communication interception, when the NDA was still in power at the Centre.
Unlike MCOCA, whose raison d’etre is explained as tackling organised crime "fuelled by illegal wealth generated by contract killing, extortion, smuggling in contrabands, illegal trade in narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of protection money and money laundering, etc," Gujcoc does not bother to explain what comprises organised crime.
It does even bother explaining why Gujarat, which the Modi government recently claimed, had a low crime rate, required such a stringent law now.
Very bluntly, the Bill begins with "to make special provisions for prevention and control of, and for coping with criminal activity by organised crime syndicate or gang, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."
Sections pertaining to interception were also scrapped from MCOCA following a petition in the Mumbai High Court in the case involving film financier Bharat Shah. The Gujcoc Bill in its new ‘avatar’, too, is without these sections.
Further, in sections referring to harbouring of criminals and holding property acquired from the said crime, Pota appears more compassionate than Gujcoc!
For example, while the minimum imprisonment for harbouring a terrorist under Pota was three years, in the case of Gujcoc it is five years for harbouring a member of an organised crime syndicate. Besides, while Pota distinguishes between voluntary and forcible harbouring, Gujcoc has done away with it.
Pota also clarifies (which Gujcoc does not) that the sub-section on harbourers shall not apply to any case in which the harbouring is done by the husband or wife of the offender.
Pota says "Whoever knowingly holds any property derived or obtained from commission of any terrorist act or has been acquired through the terrorist funds shall be punishable…", whereas Gujcoc does not mention the term ‘knowingly’.
Gujcoc reads much like Pota, with only ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist organisation’ being replaced by ‘organised crime’ and ‘organised crime syndicate’.
Post deletions of 12 sections pertaining to interception of communication and its treatment as evidence, Gujcoc’s section 27, like Pota, allows a confessional statement by an accused before an officer not below the rank of superintendent of police, to be admitted in court for trial, but is being severely opposed. Says Gujarat High Court lawyer, Mukul Sinha, "the fact that they were eager to enact this law shows that it might be misused, just like Pota."
To differentiate their scope, Inspector-General of police of the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), Vipul Vijoy Singh says, "people involved in terrorist activities usually advocate some ideology and are not mercenary, while the motive in organised crime is money, but now underworld dons like Dawood Ibrahim have begun supporting terrorist organisations."
Vadodara-based rights activist, Rohit Prajapati refers to the attitude of the Gujarat government during the 2002 riots and says, "I have a strong feeling that in the name of countering "terrorism" the state is becoming a terrorist state by looking for indiscriminate power in its hands."
According to him, the Gujcoc Bill will "legalise the state terrorism."
Taken From The Times of India (Source)
