Prevention of Communal Violence Bill snippets

The government agreed to rework the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill, bowing to criticism from the BJP and regional parties.
BJP had attacked the original draft of the bill, promised by the UPA in 2004, saying it was loaded against the majority community and marked an assault on the powers of states. Besides, regional parties also opposed the first draft of the legislation because of their fear that it represented an intrusion into the turf reserved for states under the Constitution, rendering the prospect of its passage extremely uncertain.
The new draft bill uses a community-neutral definition to identify a group which may fall victim to communal violence, while leaving the prevention and control of communal violence essentially to state governments.
Unlike the original draft, the fresh one does way with the definition of a “group” hit by communal violence as a religious or linguistic “minority”: a feature which was slammed by the BJP for its “anti-majority community” tilt. Now, communal attacks against all those “having a particular religious and linguistic identity” will be regarded as an offence.
According to the draft bill, any individual who, “either working singly or being part of an association or acting under influence of an association, engages in continuing unlawful activity of a widespread of systemic nature against a group having a particular religious or linguistic identity, by indulging in violence, intimidation or sexual assault”, will be accused of the offence of organized communal violence.
The offences proposed to be covered under the law include hate propaganda, funding of communal violence, torture and dereliction of duty by a public servant.
Bureaucrats and public servants will be held accountable for acts of omission as well as commission in the build-up to as well as during riots. They will face FIRs for failing to prevent and control riots, or if they are found colluding with the rioters. Penalty will also follow if officials intentionally inflict pain or suffering on those having a particular religious or linguistic identity, under directions of a public servant.
Senior officials may also face command responsibility if they fail to exercise control over their subordinates, and the latter go ahead and aid communal violence or fail to supervise forces properly.
The draft Bill proposes to punish organized communal violence with life imprisonment; hate propaganda with up to three years’ imprisonment or fine or both; funding of communal violence with three years or fine or both; dereliction of duty with imprisonment ranging from two years to five years; and breach of command with imprisonment of up to 10 years.
The bill seeks to provide compensation of Rs 7 lakh to the next of kin of those killed in communal violence, Rs 5 lakh for rape, Rs 3 lakh to 5 lakh for disability, and Rs 2 lakh for grievous injury.
Significantly, changes were announced just after the contents of a letter written by Gujarat CM Narendra Modi to the PM found its way into the media and after SP and BSP expressed fears about encroachment on the jurisdiction of states. On Tuesday, governments of West Bengal (Trinamool Congress), Tamil Nadu (AIADMK) and Odisha (Biju Janata Dal) had expressed similar fears at a meeting convened by the Centre.
Under the re-worked legislation, the Centre’s role will be limited to that of a coordinator and facilitator. The provision seeking to create a national authority to monitor action taken by the state governments to prevent and control riots has been dropped. The power to take action for controlling riots will continue to vest with the state governments.
Gujarat CM Narendra Modi has shot off a letter to PM Manmohan Singh opposing the proposed communal violence bill, 2013. “The bill is ill conceived and poorly drafted. It is an attempt to encroach upon the authority of the state governments,” Modi has written. He has reiterated that there is a need for wider consultation among various stakeholders. Modi has questioned the Centre’s hurry in introducing the bill in Parliament, saying that such an attempt before the Lok Sabha polls is suspicious and is driven by vote bank politics rather than genuine concern for preventing communal violence.
While pointing out that he has not seen the latest draft of the Bill, CPM’s Rajya Sabha MP Sitaram Yechury said his party has strong objections to the provision that gives the Centre power to declare an area communally disturbed. This will impact Centre-state relations, said Yechury.
The CPI, too, had similar concerns about this provision. “The Centre cannot encroach upon the state’s power,” said D Raja of the CPI.