#dnaEdit: Why did Maharashtra's law against organised crime pass muster when Gujarat's did not?

It is a matter of immense curiosity as to why the Gujarat government is persisting with the anti-terror law, called The Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime (GCTOC) Bill, and why three Presidents have rejected it.

Presidents APJ Abdul Kalam had returned it in 2004 and Pratibha Patil in 2008 and 2009. President Pranab Mukherjee returned it with questions about some of the provisions. The difference between Kalam and Patil on the one hand, and Mukherjee on the other, is that when the earlier Presidents returned the bill it meant rejection. Mukherjee returning the bill with questions leaves room for the home ministry as well as the Gujarat government to offer explanations that could satisfy the President. As a matter of fact, the home ministry is confident that it will elicit the necessary clarifications from the state government that the President has sought. The home ministry is also advising the state government to alter the wording of the bill so that it will find universal acceptability. One of the main issues is that the state law has to conform to the central law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. 

The Gujarat bill has been described as draconian, which can be misused to harass and victimise innocent people. Some of the provisions, including intercepting mobile phone calls and acceptance of confessions by suspects made to senior police officers as admissible evidence in courts are found to be objectionable. Many of those who defend the Gujarat bill point out that it is no different from the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999, in terms of the stringency of its provisions. When the bill was returned by President Patil in 2008 and 2009, it was interpreted as political prejudice on the part of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. When Kalam had returned the bill in 2004, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was still in office. This time round, there were initial objections to the provision for intercepting mobile phone calls by the Ministry of Telecom. But the Gujarat government stood its ground and asserted the state’s right to make the law.

It is a moot point as to why the MCOCA passes muster and not the GCTOC bill. A credible answer is not yet available in the public domain. Two of the influential defenders of the Gujarat bill, former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director RK Raghavan and former Maharashtra director general of police (DGP) D Sivanandhan have argued that the Gujarat bill is not a perfect legislation but that it can be improved upon under the watchful eyes of the courts and the rights groups as had happened in the case of MCOCA. They offer a plausible defence though it is far from convincing. The fact that Gujarat shares a long land and sea border with Pakistan and that it is therefore in need for an anti-terror law is a weak argument at its best. 

The Gujarat government’s own justification that organised crime is a big challenge in the state and that there is likelihood of the smugglers joining hands with terrorists point more to the contradictions in the state’s social and economic structures than to external threats. The existence of powerful crime syndicates in the state is no reflection on the fact that Gujarat is a successful economy as is claimed by the state’s BJP leaders and their friends. There is need, however, for an honest assessment and an open debate about the issue.