Opinion - Editorials

POTO: rejection and resurrection

HAVING SUFFERED AN embarrassing defeat on the floor of the Rajya Sabha over the passage of the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance Bill, the BJP-led Government has adopted its declared fallback strategy — getting the Bill passed in a special joint session of Parliament, which is expected to be convened next week. With the ordinance about to lapse, this may be (from the narrow perspective of the Centre) the only way of keeping the new terrorism law alive. But, in the prevailing circumstances, the decision to convene a joint session of Parliament to see the legislation through is a truly unfortunate and regrettable thing. It is deplorable that a piece of legislation on a subject of vital importance to the whole nation such as terrorism looks as if it will worm its way into the statute books because the Government — which, by and large, has been heedless of the Opposition's concerns — wants to play the numbers game. Given the level of political acrimony that POTO has engendered, given the widespread fears of the possibility that such a law will be misused and given the total lack of confidence that the BJP-led Government will use this severe piece of legislation in a fair and equitable manner, it is only appropriate that any new terrorism law should have been endorsed through political consensus and not by merely marshalling — in the wake of a defeat in the Upper House — the required parliamentary numbers.

True, the BJP-led Government's right to convene a joint session of Parliament under Article 108 cannot be formally or legally questioned. But it has lost the moral right to use the constitutionally-sanctioned provision of a joint parliamentary session because of the very manner in which POTO, right from the very inception, has been thrust on an unconvinced Opposition and a wary and apprehensive public. In the first place, something as important as a general law on terrorism — particularly one with significant implications for basic human rights such as the right to life, personal liberty and privacy — should not have been issued summarily by means of an ordinance. Following the Government's inability to pass the Bill in the Lok Sabha, it resorted to the same emergency provision to promulgate POTO once again (this time with some minor amendments). In other words, when POTO is resurrected in a joint session of Parliament next week, it will be after a short, troubled and procedurally questionable history which reflects the Government's disinclination to forge a political consensus around a new terrorism law.

The fact that joint sessions under Article 108 have been called twice before are not really germane in the present context. The first time (1961) it had to do with a disagreement between the two Houses over specific amendments to the Dowry Prohibition Bill. The second occasion (1977), which followed the Rajya Sabha's rejection of the Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill that was passed by the Lok Sabha, may have occurred in formally similar circumstances. But the matter under scrutiny was hardly commensurate in importance with a law such as POTO; moreover, it was also relatively free of the bitterness and antagonism which has resulted in deep fissures in the polity today. In a way, the defeat of the Bill in the Rajya Sabha reflects an increased confidence in the Opposition, which has resisted the mischievous campaign that opposing POTO is, by default, to be unpatriotic or soft and accommodating on terrorism issues. The carnage in Gujarat, where POTO was used against the cold-blooded perpetrators of Godhra but not even contemplated against the communally charged up savages responsible for the ensuing bloodbath presents a disquieting picture about how the law is conceived and how it could end up being used. Given all of this, while a joint session may marshal the required numbers, it will hardly muster what is really required in the present circumstances — trust, credibility and good faith.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• POTO: rejection and resurrection
• A political signal in Sri Lanka?
• The crisis within Hinduism
• Food security
• A view of India from Britain
• Poor mortals
• Tax on services
• Declining values
• The real intent
• Chronic disease
• Postal delay

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu