Editorial:
The Sikkim Prevention and Control of Disturbance of Public Order Bill introduced in the Legislative Assembly last week has been justifiably received with a wave of apprehension and suspicion. The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill introduces it as an “appropriate law/ rule to address social vices and offences which disturb public order and affect peace and tranquillity”. While there can be no argument against the need to protect public order and nurture peace and tranquillity, what cannot be ignored either is the fact that the public is uniquely orderly in Sikkim and while law and order situations have arisen from time to time, there has not been a serious disruption of public order in recent times.
The tabling of this Bill in the prevailing environment of such consistent equanimity is thus bound to create some confusion.
The criticism and protest from the Opposition camp was expected but what is also noticeable this time around is the discomfort and chagrin with which the politically-unattached have received the development. Suspicion is an expected response to new laws proposed to address public order in the present times of intolerance where even the Centre is unreservedly invoking seldom enforced laws and clauses to constrict expressions which embarrass it. The misgivings about the present Bill are born from its perceived intent. While the explanation of public order and activities which qualify to be recognised as offences under the proposed laws cannot be convincingly challenged, what is a genuine worry is the manner in which these can be interpreted. Acts [any action at that] which have potential to disturb public order or promote enmity or hatred or disaffection are already recorded as offences in our country. In fact, the very first amendment of the Constitution of India, undertaken in 1951, barely 15 months after the Constitution was promulgated, made Freedom of Speech and Expression, guaranteed by the Constitution, conditional, and allowed the State to make laws to impose restrictions on the exercise of this right in matters which were in the “interest of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”. It is a valid concern then to wonder why a wider bouquet has been prepared to prevent disturbance of public order. What is troubling most minds is the manner in which the proposed law could be implemented. What should also get people wondering is why the government thought it necessary to propose such a law which would obviously attract criticism from all quarters and earn it avoidable infamy which could erode much of the positive image the State and its government have worked hard to earn.
The Bill is scheduled for discussion on 26 August. With 11 days still at had hand, the discussions can be prepared to address these and the slew of other queries and clarifications the people want on the new proposal. It is obvious that expressions of dissent cannot be banned in a democracy, which, by nature is disorderly because it makes space for as many voices as are keen to express themselves. It is this presence of multiple ideologies and the environment which makes space for them that nuances governance and development to become more accommodating and participatory. This cornerstone cannot be dislocated and the discussions in the House should underline how the new Bill does not intend to do so. There is some vagueness in the proposal which needs to be explained on record and it will also be advisable for the policy-makers to have the officials who typed out the draft to undertake more careful copy-editing because there is at least on typing-error which almost qualifies as a Freudian lapse which should be corrected to avoid continued embarrassment. How such a typo went unnoticed in a Bill of such importance is also something that could be enquired into. That is an internal administrative matter, and as far as the Bill and its objective is concerned, one hopes that it is discussed and explained line-by-line in the Assembly when it meets next, to, as mentioned earlier, clarify and explain the need and all other aspects of it.
The Sikkim Prevention and Control of Disturbance of Public Order Bill introduced in the Legislative Assembly last week has been justifiably received with a wave of apprehension and suspicion. The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill introduces it as an “appropriate law/ rule to address social vices and offences which disturb public order and affect peace and tranquillity”. While there can be no argument against the need to protect public order and nurture peace and tranquillity, what cannot be ignored either is the fact that the public is uniquely orderly in Sikkim and while law and order situations have arisen from time to time, there has not been a serious disruption of public order in recent times.
The tabling of this Bill in the prevailing environment of such consistent equanimity is thus bound to create some confusion.
The criticism and protest from the Opposition camp was expected but what is also noticeable this time around is the discomfort and chagrin with which the politically-unattached have received the development. Suspicion is an expected response to new laws proposed to address public order in the present times of intolerance where even the Centre is unreservedly invoking seldom enforced laws and clauses to constrict expressions which embarrass it. The misgivings about the present Bill are born from its perceived intent. While the explanation of public order and activities which qualify to be recognised as offences under the proposed laws cannot be convincingly challenged, what is a genuine worry is the manner in which these can be interpreted. Acts [any action at that] which have potential to disturb public order or promote enmity or hatred or disaffection are already recorded as offences in our country. In fact, the very first amendment of the Constitution of India, undertaken in 1951, barely 15 months after the Constitution was promulgated, made Freedom of Speech and Expression, guaranteed by the Constitution, conditional, and allowed the State to make laws to impose restrictions on the exercise of this right in matters which were in the “interest of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”. It is a valid concern then to wonder why a wider bouquet has been prepared to prevent disturbance of public order. What is troubling most minds is the manner in which the proposed law could be implemented. What should also get people wondering is why the government thought it necessary to propose such a law which would obviously attract criticism from all quarters and earn it avoidable infamy which could erode much of the positive image the State and its government have worked hard to earn.
The Bill is scheduled for discussion on 26 August. With 11 days still at had hand, the discussions can be prepared to address these and the slew of other queries and clarifications the people want on the new proposal. It is obvious that expressions of dissent cannot be banned in a democracy, which, by nature is disorderly because it makes space for as many voices as are keen to express themselves. It is this presence of multiple ideologies and the environment which makes space for them that nuances governance and development to become more accommodating and participatory. This cornerstone cannot be dislocated and the discussions in the House should underline how the new Bill does not intend to do so. There is some vagueness in the proposal which needs to be explained on record and it will also be advisable for the policy-makers to have the officials who typed out the draft to undertake more careful copy-editing because there is at least on typing-error which almost qualifies as a Freudian lapse which should be corrected to avoid continued embarrassment. How such a typo went unnoticed in a Bill of such importance is also something that could be enquired into. That is an internal administrative matter, and as far as the Bill and its objective is concerned, one hopes that it is discussed and explained line-by-line in the Assembly when it meets next, to, as mentioned earlier, clarify and explain the need and all other aspects of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Readers are invited to comment on, criticise, run down, even appreciate if they like something in this blog. Comments carrying abusive/ indecorous language and personal attacks, except when against the people working on this blog, will be deleted. It will be exciting for all to enjoy some earnest debates on this blog...