ARTICLE 356 LITE?

The Communal Violence Bill, in limbo in Parliament since 2005, has got a fresh lease of life. The Centre's Action Taken Report on the Liberhan Commission's recommendations had mentioned the "Communal Violence Bill". A changed version of the 2005 draft has now been cleared by the Union cabinet, and is likely to be tabled in the current session of Parliament. The big question is, will the legislation change anything?

 

"Law and order" being a state subject, the responsibility to prevent and deal with communal disturbances lies with the state government, unless the Centre imposes President's Rule, as it did after (but, controversially, not before) the destruction of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. Apart from providing for tougher punishment and rehabilitation, the key feature of the 2005 draft of the Communal Violence Bill was that it increased the powers of the Centre to respond to communal violence. The new version of the bill empowers the Centre even more. The Centre can declare a particular area in a state as "communally disturbed", without the consent of the state government, and even if there is no loss of life. And the unified command created under the legislation will be controlled directly by the Centre. The benefit of this is that it would allow the Centre to respond with greater haste to communal violence where the state perhaps would not (say in Faizabad district in the December of 1992), without having to take over the entire state administration. Therefore, the bill provides the Centre with a sharp tool, not the blunt one that President's Rule might be seen to be.

 

But sharp tools, in the hands of the mala fide, can have devastating consequences. Till the '90s, all too often Article 356 was misused to dismiss unfriendly state governments. It has only been in the last decade or so that judicial precedents such as the S.R. Bommai and Rameshwar Thakur cases (not to mention coalition compulsions), have limited Article 356's misuse. The current phase of coalition governments at the Centre, with representation of regional parties that are especially wary of Article 356, too has curbed recklessness in New Delhi in imposing Central rule. The latest draft of the Communal Violence Bill does not have enough checks and balances to inhibit misuse. Rather than first enact the law and then wait for judicial checks to evolve, it is hoped that enough safeguards will be incorporated in the draft to ensure that it does not become a political tool to needle "unfriendly" state governments.