No need for communal violence Bill, amend IPC to make officials criminally responsible: ex-Gujarat DGP

By A Representative
Former director general of police (DGP) of Gujarat, PGJ Nampoothari, better known as human rights champion, has stirred the hornet’s nest by sounding a different chord from the civil society by declaring that “there is no need” for a separate anti-communal violence Bill, which the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) has been contemplating since 2004, and whose draft was made public for discussion in 2011. Known as the Prevention of Communal Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, Nampoothiri believes that, instead of introducing the Bill, all that one needs to do is to “make government officials in charge to be made criminally responsible for failure to control riots.”

“I can tell you from my own experience that there, if the officials in charge of discharging their duties are made criminally responsible for communal riots, the riots will never take place. All that one needs to do is to amend the current Indian Penal Code (IPC), in which officials responsible for dereliction of duty are prosecuted. The punishment should be serious enough to deter officials from doing anything that would lead to escalation of the communal riots”, Nampoothiri said, talking with Counterview, adding, “There should be no need to seek sanction to prosecute officials, either.”
Nampoothiri, who was associated with the National Human Rights Commission between 2002 and 2007, monitoring aftermath of the Gujarat communal riots, said, “It is sad that the anti-communal violence Bill has acquired a political dimension. To avoid such political overtone, the best option before the government would be amend the IPC. In fact, the UPA government could have easily pushed through such an amendment without a hitch during its honeymoon period, after it won polls in 2004, or later in 2009. But, sadly, it kept things lingering, and allowed things to go political.”
Nampoothiri’s remark is significant, as comes close on the Government of India considering to dilute the prosecution clause of the anti-communal violence Bill, in which government officials, who refuse to obey an “unlawful” order of their superiors during communal violence cannot be held responsible for dereliction of duty. The new draft was reworked about a month ago, and there is considerable uncertainty if the UPA will place it before Parliament. “I have my own doubts if the UPA will dare to place the Bill in Parliament because of the political controversy it has acquired”, the ex-IPS officer, who retired from service in 1998, said.
The new draft of the Bill is said to have made several changes in the Bill that was worked out in 2011. The changes in the Bill were sought close on the heels of the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi moved to say that the Bill seeks to take away the states’ powers. Buckling under political pressure, the UPA diluted the provision making the district magistrate responsible for declaring a particular area as communally disturbed and calling Central forces to intervene. It also brought down the maximum penalty for death caused by communal violence — from the Rs 15 lakh proposed to Rs 7 lakh.
The Bill’s fresh changes, which have still not been made public, say that though the new draft finalized by the Union home ministry holds bureaucrats and government officials responsible for all acts of omission and commission during riots, it has made an exception for babus who stand up to unlawful orders by their superiors. According to reports, under the proposed law, any official who exercises the authority vested in him colourably or in a manner likely to lead to riots, or screens a person from legal punishment, or fails to prevent commission of communal violence, shall be guilty of dereliction of duty "provided that the refusal by an official to obey an unlawful order to perform an unlawful duty is not dereliction of duty".

Comments

Gram sabha as reformer: Mandla’s quiet challenge to the liquor economy

By Raj Kumar Sinha* This year, the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj is organising a two-day PESA Mahotsav in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, on 23–24 December 2025. The event marks the passage of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), enacted by Parliament on 24 December 1996 to establish self-governance in Fifth Schedule areas. Scheduled Areas are those notified by the President of India under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for a distinct framework of governance recognising the autonomy of tribal regions. At present, Fifth Schedule areas exist in ten states: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. The PESA Act, 1996 empowers Gram Sabhas—the village assemblies—as the foundation of self-rule in these areas. Among the many powers devolved to them is the authority to take decisions on local matters, including the regulation...

MG-NREGA: A global model still waiting to be fully implemented

By Bharat Dogra When the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MG-NREGA) was introduced in India nearly two decades ago, it drew worldwide attention. The reason was evident. At a time when states across much of the world were retreating from responsibility for livelihoods and welfare, the world’s second most populous country—with nearly two-thirds of its people living in rural or semi-rural areas—committed itself to guaranteeing 100 days of employment a year to its rural population.

Policy changes in rural employment scheme and the politics of nomenclature

By N.S. Venkataraman* The Government of India has introduced a revised rural employment programme by fine-tuning the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which has been in operation for nearly two decades. The MGNREGA scheme guarantees 100 days of employment annually to rural households and has primarily benefited populations in rural areas. The revised programme has been named VB-G RAM–G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission – Gramin). The government has stated that the revised scheme incorporates several structural changes, including an increase in guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, modifications in the financing pattern, provisions to strengthen unemployment allowances, and penalties for delays in wage payments. Given the extent of these changes, the government has argued that a new name is required to distinguish the revised programme from the existing MGNREGA framework. As has been witnessed in recent years, the introdu...

A comrade in culture and controversy: Yao Wenyuan’s revolutionary legacy

By Harsh Thakor* This year marks two important anniversaries in Chinese revolutionary history—the 20th death anniversary of Yao Wenyuan, and the 50th anniversary of his seminal essay "On the Social Basis of the Lin Biao Anti-Party Clique". These milestones invite reflection on the man whose pen ignited the first sparks of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and whose sharp ideological interventions left an indelible imprint on the political and cultural landscape of socialist China.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Concerns raised over move to rename MGNREGA, critics call it politically motivated

By A Representative Concerns have been raised over the Union government’s reported move to rename the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), with critics describing it as a politically motivated step rather than an administrative reform. They argue that the proposed change undermines the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi and seeks to appropriate credit for a programme whose relevance has been repeatedly demonstrated, particularly during times of crisis.

Rollback of right to work? VB–GRAM G Bill 'dilutes' statutory employment guarantee

By A Representative The Right to Food Campaign has strongly condemned the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–GRAM G) Bill, 2025, describing it as a major rollback of workers’ rights and a fundamental dilution of the statutory Right to Work guaranteed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). In a statement, the Campaign termed the repeal of MGNREGA a “dark day for workers’ rights” and accused the government of converting a legally enforceable, demand-based employment guarantee into a centralised, discretionary welfare scheme.

Making rigid distinctions between Indian and foreign 'historically untenable'

By A Representative Oral historian, filmmaker and cultural conservationist Sohail Hashmi has said that everyday practices related to attire, food and architecture in India reflect long histories of interaction and adaptation rather than rigid or exclusionary ideas of identity. He was speaking at a webinar organised by the Indian History Forum (IHF).

India’s Halal economy 'faces an uncertain future' under the new food Bill

By Syed Ali Mujtaba* The proposed Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 2025 marks a decisive shift in India’s food regulation landscape by seeking to place Halal certification exclusively under government control while criminalising all private Halal certification bodies. Although the Bill claims to promote “transparency” and “standardisation,” its structure and implications raise serious concerns about religious freedom, economic marginalisation, and the systematic dismantling of a long-established, Muslim-led Halal ecosystem in India.

Search This Blog