Skip to main content

Pointed question by senior legal expert: Would Modi want armed forces special powers Act dropped?

By Our Representative
Will Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi seek to drop the current provisions of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act – under which Central forces are stationed in several states like Manipur, Assam, Jammu & Kashmir etc. for maintaining public order – in case he comes to power in Delhi? Senior Gujarat High Court advocate Mukul Sinha has obliquely suggested that this should happen logically if one agrees with the legal objections Modi has raised to the prevention of the communal violence Bill, which is proposed to be placed in the upcoming winter session of Parliament.
Wondering if Modi would like to "repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) on the ground that this law wholly violates the federal powers of these three states”, Sinha in a recent in-depth analysis (click HERE) on Modi’s opposition to the Bill has said, the revised version of the Bill says that in case the local district magistrate declares an area “disturbed and seeks the assistance of Central forces, Central Government can send armed forces to that area for maintaining public order.”
Even as saying that it is “ridiculous to expect a district magistrate to go against the state government and discharge his duties”, Sinha has accused Modi of fueling a “hypocritical debate”, Sinha says the CM has attacked the “toothless provision” to suggest that it would destroy the federal structure of the constitution. Sinha says, “Modi is shouting on top his voice that our Constitution does not permit the Centre to send forces to any state or make any law in this regard, thus questioning the legal basis of the communal violence bill”.
In fact, Sinha adds, Modi “is instigating several other state governments to oppose the bill on the ground that the law would curb the autonomous power of the state, thus dubbing it anti-federal.” He insists, “The entry no 2A of List 1 of Union list gives exclusive authority to the parliament to legislate for providing for deployment of any armed force of the Union in any state in aid of the civil power.” He adds, “Under this entry AFSPA was enacted. Under section (3) of AFSPA, if the governor of a state is of the opinion that it is necessary to use the armed forces in aid of the civil power, he or she could declare the whole or any part of such state to be a disturbed area.”
Pointing out that “under section (4), the armed forces could assume power to help the civil forces maintain public order”, Sinha insists, “Thus Modi’s claim that Centre cannot legislate or send central forces for maintaining public order in a state has no legal basis at all.” 
While not supporting the idea of Central forces directly intervening for maintaining public order in a state, as this would in fact depend on who really would be controlling the Centre, the senior advocate argues, “A far better idea would be create an independent statutory authority which should be empowered to monitor the communal situation in any part of the country and direct immediate deployment of central forces supervised by special officers under it. If the consent of the states are required to enact such a law, let consent be taken instead of rushing a toothless Bill.”
Modi in his letter to the Prime Minister opposing the Bill (for full text click HERE) had expressed “serious concerns” about its “constitutional validity, legality and efficacy.” He said, “To begin with, your government’s attempt to legislate on an issue of ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ both of which are items in the List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule betrays its contempt for the federal structure and the separation of powers.” 
He had added, “The Union List (List I) has 97 entries in it and you will agree that there are a whole range of issues in that list which are waiting for legislation. However, rather than addressing issues which are in its domain, the Government of India seems to be under some compulsion to encroach upon the issues in the State List. Is it because the implementation has to be done by the State Governments?”
Sinha observes, “A question that should perplex many of us, especially to those of us who understand the nuances of the Bill, is as to why Modi is opposing such a toothless piece of legislation which cannot prevent any organized violence against the minorities. Modi’s latest tweet asking all the state governments to oppose the bill despite the several amendments agreed to by UPA, exposes his fear that enactment of the law would act as a legal hurdle in the way of BJP’s future communal campaign of instigating communal violence as they did in Muzaffarnagar.”

In any case, Sinh adds, the Bill has “failed to address the fundamental reason as to how targeted violence against a particular community is carried out in a large scale. Without the active complicity of the government and its police force, no such violence can take place”, wondering, “Does the Bill give the Central government any statutory powers to reach armed forces to save the victims from the targeted violence aided and abetted by the State?”

Comments

TRENDING

Noam Chomsky, top scholars ask NRIs to take stand on human rights violations in India

Counterview Desk
Renowned world scholars, including Noam Chomsky, James Petras, Angela Davis, Fredric Jameson, Bruno Latour, Ilan Pappe, Judith Butler, among others, have issued a statement castigating the Narendra Modi government for allegedly creating an environment of fear through arrests, intimidation and violence.

Actionable programme for 2019 polls amidst lynch mobs, caste violence, hate mongering

Counterview Desk
Reclaiming the Republic, a civil rights network, has released a document prepared under the chairmanship of Justice AP Shah (retired) -- and backed, among others, by Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan, bureaucrat-turned-human rights activist Harsh Mander, economist Prabhat Patnaik, Right to transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj and social scientist Yogendra Yadav  (click HERE for full list) -- with the "aim" of putting forth policy and legislative reforms needed to “protect” and “strengthen” the Constitutional safeguards for India’s democratic polity.

Call to support IIM-Bangalore professor, censured for seeking action against Uniliver

Counterview Desk
Sections of the Indian Institute of Managements (IIMs) across India have strongly reacted to the decision to censure Dr Deepak Malghan, a faulty at IIM-Bangalore. Prabhir Vishnu Poruthiyil, who is faculty at IIM-Tiruchirapalli, has sought wider solidarity with Dr Malghan, saying, "The administration has censured Deepak for merely suggesting a meaningful action against Hindustan Unilever for their abysmal environmental record" by “disinviting” it for campus placement.

India under Modi "promoted" crony business, protected financial fraudsters, fueled bigotry

By Sandeep* and Rahul Pandey**
Narendra Modi's ascension to power was accompanied with jubilation and expectation. His supporters were expecting an end to era of corruption and initiation of good governance which was described as Achche Din. His party's adherence to idea of nationalism was believed to make India a vibrant country and guide India to be a world leader. He gave the slogan of 'Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas' conveying that his government was for all.
Corruption The government system is infested with corruption. A minimum of 10% is siphoned off from government schemes and projects, some of which goes back to political party in power and remaining is pocketed by various administrative, executive and political functionaries. This corruption continues and has increased. Now an additional Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) person working as Official on Special Duty or some equivalent position in every government department also has a share in this booty.
The Narendra M…

Inviting Rajapaksa to India "insult" to 1,40,000 Tamils killed by Sri Lankan army

Counterview Desk
In the context of Sri Lankan opposition leader Mahinda Rajapaksa being invited in India, about 75 human rights activists*, claiming to be concerned about rights violations during the civil war in Sri Lanka, especially in 2009, have joined together to express their dissent through a statement.

Post-advisory, Govt of India appears reluctant to ban e-cigarettes, "harmful" to kids

By Rajiv Shah
Is the Government of India dilly-dallying over the issue of banning e-cigarettes, which have been declared by anti-tobacco activists across the world as providing “an entryway to nicotine addiction”, especially among the kids? It would seem so, if the latest developments are any guide.

A Godse legacy? BJP rulers have "refrained" from calling Gandhi Father of the Nation

By Dr Hari Desai*
What an agony! On one hand, the entire India is celebrating the 150th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but on the other side, so-called Hindu Mahasabha members have been found mock-enacting the killing of the Mahatma and celebrating the murder by distributing sweets!

No aadhaar, no ration? Hard blow by Gujarat govt on poor and marginalized

By Pankti Jog*
Only those who have aadhaar registration and linked it with ration card will get ration from a Public Distribution System (PDS) shop. This decision of the Gujarat government has hit very badly thousands of poor and marginalized communities of Gujarat, especially during the drought year.

World Bank needs a new perspective on development, not just a new president

By Maju Varghese*
The resignation of the World Bank President Jim Yong Kim was an unexpected development given the fact that he had three more years to complete his tenure. Resignations at such a high level after bidding for a second term is unusual which prompts people to think what would have led to the act itself.

Not just Indian women engineers, men too face sexual harassment at workplace: US study

By Rajiv Shah
A recent research, carried out jointly by two US-based non-profit organizations, Society of Women Engineers (SWE) and Center for WorkLife Law (WLL), based at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, has found that 45% of women engineers as against 28% of men engineers complained that it was perceived as “inappropriate when women argued at work, even when it was work-related.”