& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

More Questions Raised than Answered
Within days of what appears to be the beginning of a major police crackdown on armed and criminal activities of political elements, the government has approvea a special ordinance, soon to be promulgated by the president of the republic. Termed Ine Anarchic Offences Suppression Ordinance, the law will make a whole range of crimes, from extortion to mugging to eve teasing to vandalism anarchistic acts; deny the right of habeas corpus to those charged under the ordinance. and automatically make those convicted by special tribunals liable to sentences ranging from five years imprisonment to death.
The real point, however, lies elsewhere. We have said repeatedly that the law as it stands today. and the powers that are vested in the police, are quite adequate to deal with the tvpe of crimes that have made public life Intolerable in recent months. The problem has been that the laws have not been enforced, and that the criminals have enjoyed protection from one political group or another. For their part, policemen on duty at trouble-spots have always found it convenient to point to political pressure to explain away their Inertia in the face of blatant breaches of the law.
We are not sure what gaps there are in existing laws that required the promulgation of an ordinance We are even less sure about why this piece of legislation suddenly became necessary, particularly at a time when the arrest of Ilyas All. former general secretary of the Jatiyatabadl Chhatra Dal (JCD) and successful raid on the central office of a right-wing extremist political party have made people aware of the powers the police do possess tn taking actions against terrorist suspects. After all. these actions did not require new laws, but simply political will, it is the lack of this will that has caused this fast deterioration in the law and order situation of the country, and certainly not the absence of any special tribunal or powers. Unfortunately, the government seems either not to recognise this weakness which is essentially its own. or it Is viewing the new ordinance as an added piece of weapon in its armoury, to complement the much-abused Special Powers Act of 1974.
Crucially, the ordinance breaks new and questionable grounds by providing for the use of mobile magistrates to collect confessions or testimonies of people anywhere in the tribunal's area. If the testifier is not able to stand at the tribunal later as witness for whatever reason, then the statement given to the magistrate would be admissible as evidence. That is sure to raise a big question mark about the fairness of the trial Itself. since nobody could be sure If that statement was extracted forcibly or not.
At the higher political plane, a major mistake appears to have been committed. All the tribunals will be headed by Judges appointed by the government. as will the chairman and Judges of the appeals tribunals. This would run diametrically contrary to current political thinking which calls for a total separation of the Judiciary from the executive in order to ensure the independence of the courts. In fact, if the statements of the Minister of Law and Justice and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in parliament in the recent past are an^ihing to go by. then we can assume that there Is a broad consensus on this question. Now. the tribunals, with such unprecedented powers, would deal a serious blow to this consensus on the independence of the judiciary.
Finally, we ought to recall that a bill similar to this ordinance is currently being discussed at an all-party parliamentary special committee. The bill was sent to the committee after the opposition raised serious objections about its sweeping powers. If the new ordinance is promulgated by the president even while the original bill is under consideration, then we shall have little choice but to regard it as a clear case of bypassing or pre* empting the elected and sovereign legislature of the state. That cannot bode well at a time when the major challenge before us is how to strengthen parliamentary democracy, not weaken it.