HAD it not been for an alert Marxist member of the Maharashtra assembly, the state government may have got away with the Bill. But with the wake-up call by Narsaiah Adam of the CPI(M), civil rights groups, journalists and lawyers are up in arms against the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Ordinance (MCOCO), also referred to as "TADA through the backdoor".
The heart of the dispute: a seemingly innocuous clause which is seen as a denial of the fundamental right of the freedom of speech and expression, and also as a denial of the right of the people to receive information. Clause (ii) of Section 2 of the Bill: "The passing on or publication of, without any lawful authority, any information likely to assist the organised crime syndicate and the passing on or publication of or distribution of any document or matter obtained from the organised crime syndicate" could amount to being an "abettor". Punishment: an imprisonment of five years, extended to life, or a fine of Rs 5 lakh. An 'abettor' could also be someone who communicates or associates with any person knowing that the person is assisting an organised crime syndicate in any manner.
Had this law existed in late '97, says Kapil Patil, socialist-activist and journalist, he would have been behind bars today. For, Patil had offered a satyagraha at Mahatma Gandhi's statue in Mumbai in protest against the gunning down, in an 'encounter', of Jitendra Dabholkar, secretary of the Akhil Bharatiya Sena (ABS), a political wing floated by don Arun Gawli.
"I protested against Dabholkar's killing because he was innocent—just a political worker. It was state terror operating at its worst. Under this law, I could be easily labelled as 'assisting' organised crime," he says. "Who is to decide—a corrupt police force which is itself on the take from the gangsters?" The media can only publish police versions of encounter deaths, under the terms of this Bill, says Jatin Desai of the Bombay Union of Journalists (BUJ). "Even if the police gun down innocents by mistake we will have no right to seek the truth. And why should the authorities decide if we can speak to Arun Gawli?" The BUJ passed a resolution condemning the Bill, and is seeking an audience with chief minister Narayan Rane to persuade him to drop the clause. If this fails, representative media groups plan a statewide agitation.
"The definition of 'abetment' according to MCOCO is worse than TADA," says P.A. Sebastian, secretary of the Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR) and human rights lawyer. "The 'abettors' could be lawyers defending clients, doctors attending patients, journalists reporting news. That section violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. When you take on crime through such a law, you devalue civilisational values, that for every 100 guilty going scot-free, one innocent should not be unjustly punished."
Sebastian believes the Bill is a cover-up attempt by the government. "If this clause is allowed to stand, journalists will clam up. It will be used against political rivals, and the fourth pillar of democracy will crumble." If all else fails, the CPDR and media groups plan to move the Supreme Court. Says former supercop Julio Ribeiro: "Such clauses won't stand scrutiny. They can't interfere with the freedom of the press." "Basically this is a shadow of TADA, perhaps more vulnerable to abuse and misuse and more dangerous.TADA was least used against terrorism in Kashmir, Punjab and Assam for which it was enacted. Likewise, MCOCO will not be used against organised crime. It will be used for politico-economic-sociological reasons," says Majeed Memon, a lawyer who has handled many TADA cases.
Yet, D. Sivanandan, joint commissioner for crime, Bombay, feels the fuss is unnecessary. "There are checks and balances in the law to restrain the police." The government, he says, is just targe-tting 'journalists' supported by gangsters who push stories for crime syndicates.
Sivanandan has a point. A few months back, fax machines in the state secretariat were used to send out invitations to a press conference held by Gawli. Investigation revealed the complicity of two 'reporters'. No action could be taken against them, but Gawli was barred from entering Mumbai. But general opinion is that controversial laws like the MCOCO can't fight this trend. Self-regulation is needed, as when a leading daily published an interview of a notorious don and the Press Council decreed that glorifica-tion of criminals was taboo. No media space has been given to gangsters since then.
Lawyers too have cause for worry. The bill could affect their freedom to act on behalf of clients. Says Memon: "The police can infringe upon your professional rights, even enter your bedroom with the sweeping powers they've been given to tap your phones."
Lawyers, counters Sivanandan, need fear the law only if they are acting on behalf of—as against defending—gangsters. "The Indian Telegraph Act, authorising phone tappings, always existed. This law has drawn from those Acts, and from the laws to fight organised crime in developed nations," he says. "Why label the baby a 'Dracula' even before it is born? Let it come forth and grow teeth. Then if it drinks blood and not milk, you can call it draconian." But, ask civil rights groups, if this baby is not supposed to draw blood in the first place, why enact such a law at all? "The existing laws are enough," says Sebastian. "That is like saying that you have no use for a cellphone. That land-lines are more than adequate means of communication," snaps Sivanandan. But, say civil rights groups, every problem does have a solution—under the existing safeguards.
Tags