Sir, I am very glad to
find that the amendment which I have moved has found support from many honourable
Members of the House who have spoken on the first reading
of the Bill. I do not think the honourable Leader of the
Opposition opposed my amendment although he had a great deal to say with
regard to the Bill itself. The opposition of my friend was not
fundamental, but was tactical. In view of this, it is not necessary for
me really to make any lengthy reply to the comments that have been made,
but there are only two matters to which I would like to refer. This is admittedly
an emergency measure and as an emergency measure, it120 does involve a considerable amount of
restraint upon the liberty of the individual. My amendment is an emergency
amendment and, 140 as I
have admitted in my speech, it does involve a restraint on the part
of the individual. 160 I
would like to submit in connection with this that if those gentlemen who
have spoken in regard to my amendment enlarging and emphasising the fact
that it does involve restriction, I would respectfully invite their
attention to refer to the Defence of the Realm Act that was passed
in the time of war in England and to the Defence of India Act that was
passed in India. Both of them were emergency measures and if any one of those
gentlemen were240 to refer to
the provisions of the Act, I am sure they will find that this
amendment is a very mild amendment and let it be remembered further that this
emergency legislation, for instance, the Defence of the Realm Act280 and the Defence of India Act lasted for
over four years. The Defence of the Realm Act in England was passed in 1914 and
was not repealed till 1919 and the powers given to the police officers were
certainly320 much vaster than
the powers that are given under this amendment. Therefore, having regard
to the emergency, I submit that the powers that are given to the
Police Commissioner cannot be said to be unduly wide.
Now, with
regard to the360 other
matters, namely, that this is a permanent measure, I would like to
draw the attention of the House to the provisions contained in
section 102 of the Government of India Act and which are very pertinent
and very relevant on this occasion. Sir, section 102 of the Government of India
Act is exactly what this amendment proposes to do. 420 There too, the Governor-General
has been given the power in his own discretion to issue a proclamation
of emergency and during the period of that proclamation, the
Governor-General is entitled to pass whatever law, by means of ordinances
that may be necessary for the maintenance of peace and order.
Therefore, my submission to the House is that we are really480 not doing anything that is unusual
having regard to the Defence of the Realm Act and the Defence of India Act and
having regard to the provisions contained in section 102. There was one comment
which my honourable friend made that although my desire was to confine
these emergency powers to communal conflicts and communal riots, the
language used in this amendment is not such as would confine the operation of
this amendment to communal riots. His argument was that560 the word “community” does not
necessarily mean religious community and that it is used as
commercial community, industrial community and labour community; and secondly,
the Government will use its powers for the purpose of invoking
this legislation even in labour disputes. 600
Now, my first submission on that point is that this part of the proclamation is
certainly not going to be the subject of bearing the interpretation because
it is a matter to be determined by the Government640 in its own discretion. It is
not going to any court and the emergency proclamation is not going to be a
question in a court of law as to whether it has been properly
invoked or not. All that the court will be concerned in finding
is whether a proclamation has been issued. Whether the proclamation has been
properly issued or700 not
would be a matter for the Government and this Government would be
amenable to this House if the Government uses its power720 to make a proclamation for purposes which
are not intended either by the Government or myself or any Members of the
Opposition.
The other
thing that I would like to submit is that I admit that the word
“community” is used popularly in a wide sense, but before I came here, I did
refer to the Oxford Dictionary in order to satisfy myself, because I am anxious
that this measure should not be extended to labour disputes. 800 So far as I am able to
understand the word and so far as any help can be derived from a standard
dictionary, I have no doubt in my mind that the word “community”,
etymologically and basically is used only in the sense840 of religious community. The derivation seems
to be those who are in communion. Communion is a religious word. A person
ceases to be in communion when he is ex-communicated by a religious authority,
he ceases to be inside the community. That is the origin of the word. I am
perfectly satisfied that this is not a word which can be so
used as to bring in labour or strike or another situation. If my honourable
friend thinks that this is not enough and that another word is necessary, I
am perfectly prepared to help him in that matter.
Sir,
before I say what I have to say in support of the amendment which960 I have moved, it is perhaps necessary
for me to make two preliminary observations. The first observation that I would
like980 to make is this. The
reason why I support the Bill brought forward by my honourable
friend, seeking to amend section 27 of the Act, is this. Much has been
said in the course of the debates yesterday that the amendment gave more
powers to the Commissioner of Police than the original section 27 did. Now
having applied the Bill as a whole, I have not the slightest doubt in
my mind that the amended section 27 will be of a much milder character than
the section 27 as it stands today. Therefore, I agreed to the suspension of1080 the orders and to help the honourable
Home Minister in getting this legislation pass through. The second
observation I should like to make is this. At the parties’ conference
where we had a discussion with regard to this amendment, I did1120 say that I would support the
measure which was agreed to at the time when we discussed the various
proposals. My honourable friend, the Home Minister, might say that,
having taken that view at the time of the conference, it was not open to me to
come forward with an amendment now. It is that which I would like to explain.
Sir, when I agreed with the honourable Home Minister to support him, the
amendment was confined to the1200
principle underlying the Bill. If I understand it correctly, the principle underlying
the Bill is this. There are certain persons in the City of Bombay who are
committing crimes and whose character is such that by reason of the terror they
strike against their victims, the victims themselves do not come forward to
give evidence in a court of law. 1260
Therefore, a regular trial could not be had. That is the principle of
this Bill. I stick to that principle. 1280
I am not deviating from that principle. All that I am seeking to do is
to confine the category of persons against whom action can be taken by the
Commissioner of Police without resorting to a regular trial by reason of the
fact that the informants are not prepared to come before a Court of Law.
Therefore, my view is that my amendment is an amendment of detail and not an
amendment of principle.
What
I have sought to do is nothing new. I have taken the wording from
section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 110 of the Criminal
Procedure Code gives power to the police to prosecute a man before a Presidency
Magistrate or District Magistrate1400
if he is by habit a robber. It might be argued that under section 110 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, even if a person is by habit a robber and even if
a person is a desperate and dangerous character, action1440 cannot be taken against him without a
trial. Why do you want to take action against him, because he is
in the city of Bombay? That kind of argument may be used. My justification
for that is that we are dealing with cases where persons are not
prepared to come before a court of law to give evidence and that is the
reason why I have consented to give the Commissioner of Police the power of an extra-judicial
and extra-legal kind. In giving such powers, it is necessary
to restrict and define the category of persons against whom action can be
taken. My submission is that the House will do well in defining the
class by saying that the person must be doing unlawful acts by habit and not by
accident. With these words, I commend my amendment to the House. 1580
