New Delhi: Opposition members on Monday termed the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill as “draconian” and demanded that it be referred to a Parliamentary standing committee to ensure stronger safeguards to prevent its misuse.
During a discussion on the Bill in the Lok Sabha, members voiced concern over the broad provisions in the draft legislation that empowered a head constable of a police station or a head warden of a jail to take “measurements” of convicts as well as those in preventive detention.
Initiating the discussion on the Bill, Congress member Manish Tewari said the draft legislation was “draconian and against civil liberties.”
The Bill provides for taking measurements of convicts and other persons for the purposes of identification and investigation in criminal matters and to preserve records.
Tewari said that the Bill was against the spirit of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution dealing with human rights and with civil liberties.
The proposed law was also against the widely accepted dictum that everyone should be treated innocent unless proven guilty, he said, adding the provisions of the Bill were “very wide and ambiguous”, and can be misused by the state and the police.
“The Bill would pave the way for India to become a surveillance state,” Tewari warned.
BJP member Vishnu Dayal Ram said that provisions of the Bill would strengthen the hands of the investigative agencies and help in increasing conviction rate and reducing the incidence of crime.
He added that the Bill was in accordance with the rulings of the Supreme Court and reports of the Law Commission.
Ram said the right to privacy is important but it cannot be an absolute right without any restrictions.
Dayanadhi Maran (DMK) said the Bill was anti-people and against the spirit of federalism.
Accusing the government of trying to establish a surveillance state by bringing in such a legislation, he said, “It is open ended and infringes on the privacy of individuals.”
Trinamool member Mahua Moitra said the Bill sought to replace the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, but the proposed law had fewer safeguards than the law enacted by British colonisers.
Moitra said in absence of a data protection law, the proposed measure lacked safeguards to ensure that the information collected was protected well, and could lead to violation of the privacy of an individual who has not been convicted.
She said the Bill seeks to group people booked for preventive detention with those arrested for serious crimes and has made the “thanedar” of a police station more powerful.
Shiv Sena member Vinayak Raut termed the Bill a “cruel joke on humanity” as it encroached upon the fundamental rights of an individual and was open to misuse.
“Instead of helping the undertrials, the bill seeks to put those already in trouble into more trouble,” he said, adding that a “mere head constable” had the right to take samples and even order a narco test on a person under detention.
YSRCP member Midhun Reddy supported the bill, contending that more than 70 countries have similar laws to grant statutory cover to investigating agencies.
He wanted the government to assure that the provisions of the law will not be used for political witch-hunt and the data should not be misused.
BJD member Bhratruhari Mahtab said on the face of it the Bill was a modern measure compared to its colonial predecessor but called for stronger safeguards to prevent its misuse.
“This has the potential to create a comprehensive profile of every citizen,” he said, adding that it would have been easier to accept the provisions of this Bill had the Data Protection Law and the DNA Profiling Law been in place.
NCP member Supriya Sule contended the Bill was violative of Article 21, the Right to be forgotten, and the rights of prisoners.
BSP member Danish Ali apprehended the Bill could convert India into a police state and could be used to settle political scores. Ali also demanded that the bill be referred to a standing committee.
