Sir, before I
proceed to deal with the merits of the amendment which I have tabled, I
think it would be desirable if I tried to show to the House the
necessity of this amendment. The honourable Home Minister, while introducing
the Bill, has stated that the City of Bombay and its citizens are a prey
and a victim to certain undesirable characters who tyrannize and molest the
weaker section of the community, and the weaker section of the community has
neither the determination or the desire to go to a court of law and obtain a
conviction and punishment of such dangerous characters; and consequently, he
thinks that it is necessary to arm the Commissioner of Police in the120 very interests of the people who are
being molested by these dangerous characters, so that he should take action
against him. 140 Sir, I
readily agree that the danger to which he has referred is a very real one. 160 If the House would allow me to
say so, I am very familiar with the kind of evil to which he has referred. I
have spent a very great part of my life in what I may call the underworld of
Bombay City. I have lived among labourers and the lower classes, and I know
perfectly well, more than the Commissioner of Police or the honourable Home
Minister, how these poor people are molested by local goons, how utterly
impossible it is240 for these
victims to obtain any redress, because they themselves, for fear of further
molestation, would not go to a court of law and seek to get a conviction. I,
therefore, think that the Bill that has been brought forward280 is thoroughly justified by the
circumstances of the case. But I felt that there was another danger to
which the citizens of this city were subjected and for which he had
made no provision in this Bill. 320
Sir, the necessity to which I refer is the necessity arising out of what are
called communal riots. I have some figures relating to the communal riots that
have taken place in the City of Bombay. Between the year 1851 and 1938, 360 there have been altogether 9
communal riots in the City of Bombay. The first two riots were between the
Muslims and the Parsis. All other riots were between the Hindus and the
Muslims. The rapidity with which these riots have taken place is also
interesting and important which the House should bear in mind. Those of us who
are conscious420 of these facts
and who know the responsibility will agree that some remedy has to be found for
this constant suspension of civilization and the annual blood baths in which
these two communities are indulging. I do not wish to enter into the causes of
these riots; whether they are political, whether they are religious or whether
they are economic is480 a
matter of no concern to us. The stark fact that a Muslim, without caring for
anything, goes and stabs a Hindu, and a Hindu, without caring for anything,
stabs a Muslim is a calamity which we could never tolerate. I think
the time has arrived when some measure ought to be forged whereby
the authorities in the country will be able to deal with the
menace effectively and expeditiously.
Referring to
the merits of this amendment, the first thing560
to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is that clause
3 of my amendment gives the Commissioner of Police the power to remove any
person within the limits of the Bombay Presidency, if the Commissioner600 of Police has reasons to believe that
the person is acting in such a manner that his presence, his movements, or his
acts are responsible for the riot. That is the main aim of the Bill. Now, I
fully agree640 that this
clause in this Bill itself seems to impose a restriction upon the
particular individual. I come from a class which needs liberty more than any
other class in society. I am by profession a lawyer and I understand the
importance of liberty; but, with all that hankering for liberty, which is in me
by reason of the interests700
of the class to which I belong and also by reason of the fact that I am by
profession a720 lawyer, I
cannot help saying that there are occasions when, in order to protect
the liberty of the large mass of the people, the liberty of the criminal
sections in the society can be suspended. I have no hesitation on
the point. The only thing which worries me and which ought to worry the Members
of this House is this. Are there any safeguards laid down in order to see
that this arbitrary power which we are now giving to800 the Commissioner of Police will not
be misused? That is the only question I submit with which this
House, having regard to the necessity of the occasion, could be
concerned.
Sir, my
submission to the House is that there are840 ample provisions of safeguard in this amendment.
Therefore, I will briefly refer to those safeguards. The first safeguard is
this. Under this amendment, the Police Commissioner could never begin to
exercise this arbitrary power, without the knowledge of the Legislature or the
public at large. He can never do it, because, as honourable Members will see,
this power of the Police Commissioner will commence and will vest in him only
after the emergency proclamation is issued. Before the emergency
proclamation is issued, or before the emergency has been declared, the
Commissioner of Police will not be able to exercise this power.
That is one thing we have got to bear in mind with regard to the
provision contained in this amendment. 960
These powers will become operative only after the emergency proclamation
is issued and this has a certain advantage980
from the point of view of the Legislature. If the Government issued a
proclamation of emergency without any justification, then this House
will have an opportunity to move an adjournment motion and condemn the Government
for having wrongly issued the emergency proclamation. I submit that this is a
control which this amendment gives to the Legislature in order to see that
this power is not abused. The second advantage which this amendment gives
is this. It may be that the Government issues the proclamation of
emergency and refuses to cancel or revoke the proclamation of emergency so that
the Commissioner of Police1080
begins to use the powers and continues using them, notwithstanding the
fact that the emergency has ceased to exist. As against this, there is a
provision made in this to which I should like to call the attention1120 of the House. By this very
amendment, the proclamation will cease after one month, unless the Government
renews it. So, there is again an ample safeguard provided here that, after one
month, the power shall cease to operate. Another safeguard to which I should like
to draw the attention of this House is sub-clause (6) which is very important.
Although this amendment gives the Commissioner of Police the power to deport a
person who, in his judgment, is causing communal riots, this1200 order of deportation has a limitation
to be appended, and that limitation is that as soon as the
proclamation of emergency ceases to operate, the order automatically expires,
so that a person who has been deported by the Commissioner of Police can
return to Bombay. That again is a further safeguard. Another safeguard to which
I should like to draw1260 the
attention of the House is that as against the order of the Commissioner
of Police there is an appeal1280
provided to the Provincial Government.
With regard to
the other amendments that have been moved, I should like120 to say just one or two things. I
think my honourable friend, the Home Minister, will agree that
yesterday, when we drafted clause (1) of this amendment, it was agreed on all
sides that this section was not to be used for labour troubles or
for any other troubles, except those arising out of disturbances caused
by communities in the sense of religious communities, or sections of
communities having religious differences. All this, in my judgment, was
confined to purely communal riots. I am perfectly prepared to be satisfied
with the assurance given by the honourable Home Minister that it
is intended1400 not to be
applied to any other kind of incident. But if gentlemen in this House
desire that there should be no lacuna left, no loophole left for the Executive
to use the provisions of this section for any other1440 purpose than those for which it is
intended, I am perfectly with them in order to make the meaning
clear. With regard to the word “presence”, I must say that I cannot
support the amendment that the word “presence” should be omitted. The word
“presence” must remain. I will give an illustration. A sadhu comes to Bombay;
he is persona grata with one community, he is not persona grata with another
community. A fakir comes to Bombay; one section venerates him; another
section repudiates him. A communal riot starts on that account. Would it
not be necessary that the very presence of this man should be removed from the
City of Bombay in order that the riots may be quelled? This may be an
extreme illustration, but an extreme illustration is the only way of
testing the validity and the effect of the power we give. Therefore, I
submit that the word “presence” is very necessary and should be
retained1600 in the Bill.
