NGO's demand changes in the proposed Goa Police Bill

Panaji, Jul 8 : Opposing certain 'draconian and undemocratic provisions' in the proposed Goa Police Bill-2008, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) and the Panjim-based Council for Social Justice and Peace (CSJP) today demanded the Select Committee of the State Legislative Assembly not to finalise the Bill before it was thoroughly debated and accepted by the civil society.

An open debate on the bill, attended by several NGOs, general public and the media, had resolved to depute a delegation to the chairman of the select committee and Home Minister Ravi Naik, to convince him on the need for acceptance of the provisions of the Bill by the civic society with deletions/amendments to certain clauses.

The meeting had also decided to mount a media campaign on the issue besides mobilising public opinion as the bill in its original form could leave a tremendous impact on the society.

The meeting demanded total deletion of sections 52 and 53 of the Bill that provide for creation of 'security zones and operating procedures' which could be abused against the peoples' organisations raising their voice against injustices including environmental concerns as they would be treated as security threat.

''These provisions are totally dangerous when there is sufficient legislation on books to deal with special situations such as breakdown of law and order. Police Acts must not impinge on those other regulations. Police laws are put in place to regulate policing, provide the police with a new vision of itself,'' the CHRI representatives said.

The meeting also demanded removal of section 20 of the bill providing for appointment of special police officers and confering on them the same powers, privileges and immunities. This was likely to turn the non-state actors who could become mercinaries by taking law into their own hands like in Punjab and Chhattisgarh.

Several NGOs including Goa Foundation, Goa Bachao Abhiyan and Asha Family Responsibilities and Rights Association had discussed the pros and cons of the bill in the present form at the Institute Piedade in the city.

The meeting was addressed, among others by Advocate Peter D'Souza, Advocate Caroline Collasso, Ms Navaz Kotwal, Coordinator, Police Reforms Programme, and Ms Aditi Diya Nag, Research Officer, Police Reforms, CHRI, New Delhi.

''Though the bill deeply impacts residents of Goa, it has not been discussed with the public who are the people most interested in having better policing. Nor is it known if many good suggestions, made by concerned citizens, were taken by the Select Committee examining the bill,'' they deplored.

They said the organisations would like to work closely with the government and police service to ensure that Goa's statute becomes the 'pre-eminent example of moderrn, progressive, democratic, police legislation in India.' The bill in the present form falls short of principles of democratic policing, undermines civil liberties and does not reflect a strong progressive legislation to meet the modern day needs of the society or police even as the legislation is proposed after 150 years to replace the 1861 Police Act, they said.