(MENAFN- Trend News Agency)
The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022, was passed
by both Houses of Parliament this week, amid heated protests by the
Opposition. Introduced by the government on March 28, it cleared
the Lok Sabha on April 4 and the Rajya Sabha on April 6. The
government turned down demands that the Bill be referred to a
Standing Committee for consideration, Trend reports citing The Indian EXPRESS .
A look at the debate in the Lok Sabha:
Amit Shah, Home Minister
Moving the Bill, Shah said it was being brought as the
Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920,“has become kalbahya
(obsolete) from the point of view of time and science”.“The
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022, will not only fill
those obsolete gaps… but it will also widen the scope of evidence
for conviction.”
Shah also noted that it was in 1980 that the Law Commission had
recommended reconsideration of the Identification of Prisoners Act,
1920, and said they had held several discussions and communications
with states.“After incorporating their suggestions and studying
various provisions being used in criminal laws for proving guilt
across the globe, I have brought this Bill.”
He also said the government would soon come out with a model
prison manual to address the concerns expressed by the House.
Against
Manish Tewari, Gaurav Gogoi, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury,
Congress
Tewari, the Anandpur Sahib, Punjab, MP said the Identification
of Prisoners Act introduced by the British had a history and
perspective, and that needed to be presented before the House.
“Uski mansha thi ki logon mein ek dar paida kiya ki agar aapke
figureprints le liye jayenge, aapki tasvir kheench li jayegi, vah
tasvir thanon me lagai jajegi, aapke figureprints circulate kiye
jayenge, to aapko na koi naukari mil payegi aur na aap koi vyavsay
kar payenge (The intention was to intimidate people, that your
figureprints will be taken, your photo will be taken, that photo
will be put up at police stations, and if your fingerprints are
circulated, then you will not be able to find a job nor do any
business),” he said, adding that if any law is brought in to
replace it,“it is expected that the law would be liberal”.
However, Tewari said, the Bill brought by the government
violates the three Articles of the Constitution — 14,19 & 21 —
which enshrine basic rights. This, he said, went against the
Supreme Court's landmark judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati vs
Union of India outlining that no government could change“basic
structure” of the Constitution.
The Congress MP expressed concerns over several provisions of
the Bill, starting with the definition of“measurements”, which he
said was very“ambiguous and nebulous”. He specifically asked
whether brain mapping and narco analysis will be used as part of
“biological samples and their analysis”, and about the intention
behind collecting details on“behavioural attributes”.
The leader of the Congress in the Lok Sabha, and the MP from
Baharampore, West Bengal, Chowdhury said the Bill“offers a carte
blanche to police officials to collect samples according to their
whims and fancies”. There was“a danger of serious infringement
upon the territory of freedom, individual rights, and civil
liberties”, he said.
The MP from Kaliabor, Assam, Gogoi said the Bill was a classic
case of the Executive giving itself more powers.“The Home Minister
has given us no assurance that this Bill will not be abused, and
that is the central question. Therefore, on the basis of
Constitutional propriety, on the basis of propriety of Indian
principles, on the basis of propriety of governance, I demand that
this Bill should be sent to the Standing Committee,” Gogoi
said.
Dayanidhi Maran, DMK
The Chennai Central MP called the Bill“anti-people and
anti-federal”, and sait it had been brought to“terrorise the
country”.“I would have appreciated if the Home Minister had
brought the law en masse to ensure that all the antique laws which
were brought by the Britishers are given a new effect, but they
seem to be cherry-picking, cherry-picking whichever laws they want
to change and, that too, if they feel that they can terrorise the
country.” Maran said he was saying so as the Bill was“against the
Fundamental Right to Privacy of a citizen”.
Addressing the government, he said:“As a common man, I am
concerned. Do you not feel that this will be misused, targeted
against individuals? Your government is known to target the
minorities. Any law you bring, the first abuse is done to the
minorities… Any ordinary citizen who is accused or a person
suspected of anything can be profiled to this extent.”
Expressing concern over“sweeping powers” to the government, and
accusing the government of misusing Central agencies, Maran said:
“Already we feel that the Union government is spying on Indians
with the Pegasus software, which you failed to address.”
Mahua Moitra, Sougata Ray, TMC
Moitra, the Krishnanagar, Bengal, MP, also referred to the
British origins of the 1920 Act“to control nationalist forces and
increase surveillance”.“Now, how tragic or ironic it is that a
century later, we have an elected Indian government… which claims
to be more nationalistic than any of its predecessors… and today
you are bringing in a law that is more intrusive, that collects
more data than the original law, and has fewer checks and balances
and fewer safeguards than even the British era law had.”
Moitra noted that the Bill redefines the term“measurement” to
allow police to take retina scans, iris scans, fingerprints, palm
prints, footprints, physical and biological samples and behavioural
attributes, including signatures and handwriting, and said the law
would be introduced without a data protection law,“which India so
desperately needs”.
“The mala fides of this Bill are apparent, not only the
unconstitutional provisions it seeks to enforce. It also seeks to
blur out any and old distinction between an undertrial, a detainee
or suspect and a convict. It is using the words 'a person involved
in any crime'. It is a very broad sweep. The expansion of this
ambit… allows arrest of persons for any offence, which include
people under preventive detention laws.”
Moitra added:“This Bill will make the thanedar — the dreaded
thanadar — even more dangerous.”
Roy, the MP from Dum Dum, Kolkata, also talked about the undue
powers to police officials, saying:“I think this Bill was drafted
in a hurry. Without any provocation, there is no reason why Shri
Amit Shah suddenly came up with this Bill.”
Bhartruhari Mahtab, BJD; Supriya Sule, NCP; Kunwar Danish Ali,
BSP
Noting that the debate was whether the Bill was too“intrusive”,
Cuttack MP Mehtab said the legislation contains“muddled language”.
“We want to control them but, at the same time, are we doing
something which will protect innocent citizens? There, actually the
crux of the issue lies. We have to bring a balance and here, in
this Bill, that balance is lacking,” he said.
Sule, the NCP MP from Baramati, Maharashtra, also sought
balance.“I am sure the intention of the government is very good.
Even from the state where I come from, we are completely open to
doing these identification tests… But how far we want to go is the
question that we need to ask ourselves.”
The MP from Amroha, Uttar Pradesh, Ali said his party was not
opposed to police reforms or modernisation of police forces but to
certain provisions of the Bill. Observing that a head constable can
prepare one's complete identification profile under the new law,
Ali said,“ Do you want to make India a police state?”
E T Mohammed Basheer, IUML; N K Premachandran, RSP
Basheer, the MP from Ponnani, Kerala, said the new law“will be
an addition in the list of black laws”.“This will give
extra-constitutional power to the police officers from SHO level to
Presiding Officers and Magistrates.”
Premachandran, the MP from Kollam, Kerala, also called the
proposed law“draconian”, and said it“takes away the democratic
and fundamental rights of citizens”.
Syed Imtiaz Jaleel, AIMIM
The Aurangabad, Maharashtra, MP said:“My objection is not that
we cannot collect this data, that we should not use technology to
prevent crime. My objection is that the government is bringing in
this law without respecting the constitutional Right to Privacy or
the right against self-incrimination.”
Jaleel said he had some questions for Shah:“Under what
circumstances can a cop be allowed or denied access to this
database? What are the permissible uses of this database? What
punishment happens if a police officer uses this database in
violation of extant law?”
In favour
Vishnu Dayal Ram, BJP
The Palamu, Jharkhand, MP, said the Bill would help improve
conviction rates as well as“curb crime and criminals”. Ram argued
that criminals keep changing their modus operandi, and that
investigative agencies need to be“empowered” to check crime.
Disputing the Opposition's charge that the Bill violates
constitutional provisions, he said:“In Ritesh Sinha vs State of
Uttar Pradesh, Honorable Supreme Court had said that compelling
someone to give sample does not violate Article 20(3).” (The
Article guards an accused against any act that can be
self-incriminating.)
Brijendra Singh, BJP
The Hisar, Haryana, MP argued that the Bill filled crucial gaps.
“No society is perfect, nor is ours. There are deeply held biases
and prejudices embedded in our social consciousness. Our police is
a product of its social milieu, and as such is far from being
perfect. However, that does not mean we do not empower it with
requisite powers and instruments. There is an undeniable need to
strike a balance between protecting an individual's privacy and
giving police the tools they need to keep us safe.”
Satyapal Singh, Aparajita Sarangi, BJP
The MP from Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, and a former police officer,
Singh said that“if we want to build the best country, we have to
enact good laws”. On the Opposition's charge that the law will be
misused, Singh said:“Let me know which law is not misused. We have
so much political willpower that we will not allow it to be
misused.”
Sarangi, the MP from Bhubaneswar, said the Bill reinforced that
the Modi government“keeps pace with changing times”.
P V Midhun Reddy, YSRCP
The MP from Rajampet, Andhra Pradesh, backed the Bill as being
“in line with global standards and for our investigation agencies
to be on a par with other advanced countries”. Reddy added:“… it
can also protect innocent people. It can save government money…
government resources. It will also save time spent on
investigations”.
However, the YSR Congress Party MP cautioned that the Bill
should not become a tool for political“witch-hunt”.“DNA profiling
also… should be used purely for serious crimes and for
counter-terrorism purposes only.”
P Ravindhranath, AIADMK
The Theni, Tamil Nadu, MP said:“For a civilised and advanced
society to be developed and maintained, a civilised and
sophisticated police force is quite essential… Therefore, emphasis
should be made in this Bill on capacity building, including experts
in forensics at the police station level itself.”
Navneet Ravi Rana, Independent
The MP from Amravati, Maharashtra, said:“The Bill is being
opposed on the count that it is unconstitutional as it affects the
Right to Privacy, but the Right to Privacy is altogether a
different thing than the intent of the government. There is no
reason to create a hungama on this.”
Amit Shah, Home Minister
Replying to the debate, Shah said no possibility of data misuse
has been left in the Bill.“In the rules, the method of its
functioning would be chalked out in such a way to ensure it and the
services of best knowledgeable persons of technology in the country
would be availed for this purpose,” he said.
Shah also argued that the Bill is for“protecting the human
rights of crores of law-obedient citizens of the country”.
Tags:
MENAFN10042022000187011040ID1103986505