Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath addresses the Assembly in Lucknow on Tuesday. (Express Photo by Vishal Srivastav)
Opposition benches lay empty as the Uttar Pradesh Control of Organised Crime Bill (UPCOCB), 2017, was again passed by voice vote in the state Assembly on Tuesday.
The Bill seeks to curb organised crime and deal strictly with those trying to foment terror or dislodge the government forcibly or through violent means.
Calling the Bill “kala kanoon (black law), “anti-Constitution, anti-democracy, anti-journalists as well as anti-MLAs”, all Opposition members staged a walkout before the Bill was placed for a voice vote.
Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath alleged that the Bill was being opposed just for the sake of it and accused the Opposition of being sympathetic towards criminals instead of the public. “Virodh ke liye sirf virodh ho… mujhe lagta hai… Janata ke prati sahanabhuti ke bajaye aparadhiyon ka mahimamandit karte hain,” he said. The Opposition denied the allegation and said that the Bill was like an “undeclared emergency”.
After it was cleared by the Assembly in December last year, the UPCOCB was sent to the Legislative Council’s select committee for scrutiny. It was again rejected by the Council last week after it was cleared by the select committee and sent to the Assembly for consideration.
Informing the House that further discussion was not required since the select committee had made no amendments to the original Bill, Speaker Hriday Narayan Dixit put it to a vote. Leader of Opposition Ram Govind Chaudhary, BSP Legislature Party leader Lalji Verma as well as Congress Legislature Party leader Ajay Kumar “Lallu” then demanded that it be sent to the Assembly’s select committee. Soon after, the entire Opposition staged a walkout.
“Following an increase in the ambit of crime, such a law was required for a long time now. Considering the way comments were made on public representatives in Uttar Pradesh, which is one of the biggest states, considering how the state’s boundaries touch those of other states and countries, and for the security of people of this state, the need for such a law was felt,” said Adityanath, while the Opposition said that existing laws were sufficient for crime control if used properly.
Assuring that the law would not be misused, the chief minister said it would be used against those who try to disturb the harmony in the state, those who indulge in kidnapping for ransom, illegal mining, manufacturing and sale of illicit liquor, fake medicines, encroachment of government or private property, etc.
Citing recent arrests made by the Anti-Terrorism Squad of those allegedly involved in terror funding, Adityanath said that apart from controlling organised crime, the new law would also be used against such elements “who play with national security”.
In response, Chaudhary said, “The Opposition wants an end to crimes…but is it right to put the Constitution at stake for the same?” He further asked, “If claims made by the chief minister about controlling crime in the state in the past one year are true, then what is the need for such a law?” He added that BJP leaders including the present Minister of Parliamentary affairs Suresh Khanna had opposed a similar law when it had been placed during the previous BSP regime.
The Opposition leader said a similar power was given to the police during Emergency and alleged that the new Bill would also seek to target the freedom of the press.
The UP Control of Organised Crime Bill
* The Bill was placed in Assembly for the first time citing: “The existing legal framework … have been found to be rather inadequate to curb or control the menace of organised crime. It has, therefore, been decided to enact a special law with stringent and deterrent provisions including attachment of properties, remand process, controlled delivery procedure regarding crime control, special courts and special prosecutors for speedy trail, justice, modern investigational process to control the menace of organised crime.”
* The activities which would come under the ambit of ‘organised crime’: Kidnapping for ransom, preventing someone from bidding or taking part in government contracts, to kill or get someone killed for consideration, to forcibly take possession of government or private land, prepare forged documents of any building or land, collect protection money from markets, footpath vendors etc, illegal mining or extraction of forest produce, money laundering, human trafficking, manufacturing of spurious drugs or illicit liquor, illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs
* Punishment: The Bill proposes death sentence or life imprisonment along with a minimum fine of Rs 25 lakh if an act of organised crime results in the death of a person or otherwise at least seven years’ imprisonment with a minimum fine of Rs 15 lakh. It also brings under its ambit the tenders and contracts of the state and central governments, maintaining that attempts to prevent someone from bidding would also be regarded as organised crime.
* Why Opposition calls it “patrakar virodhi”: The Bill defines punishment for “passing on or publication of, without any lawful authority, any information likely to assist the organised crime syndicate” as well as “passing, publication or distribution of any document obtained from an organised crime syndicate”.
* What happens now: Since the select committee of the Legislative Council had not suggested any amendment to the original Bill, it will now be sent to the Governor.
Meanwhile…
*MLA LAD fund increased to Rs 2 crore: On the request of MLAs from both the Opposition as well as the ruling party, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath announced a Rs 50 lakh hike in the MLA local area development fund on the last day of the ongoing budget session. He also said GST would not be charged on this fund. While MLAs demanded that the existing MLALAD fund be hiked to Rs 5 crore from existing Rs 1.50 crore, there also came a suggestion that MLALAD fund be dissolved and instead all applications for work be accepted and executed by the government. To this, the chief minister said it was a good suggestion and soon a nodal agency be formed to look into it. He authorised the installation of 100 handpumps in rural areas and submersible pumps in urban areas.
*Adityanath rejects proposal of Gomti Nagar flats for MLAs: Adityanath rejected the demand of houses or flats for MLAs in the posh Gomti Nagar locality of Lucknow or NOIDA at subsidised rates and said that the priority of the government was to first ensure roofs for the poor. Since the demand came from an MLA of his own party, he advised that such demands should not be raised, which would give others a chance to raise a finger on the public representatives.
*Acute shortage of garbage bins in urban local bodies: As CAG reports (audit ending March 2016) of panchayati raj and urban development departments were tabled in Assembly on Tuesday, one report pointed out acute shortage of garbage bins in urban local bodies. The report stated that in 2015-16, while 34,438 dustbins were required, only 3,344 were pressed into service — a shortfall of 90 per cent of the sanctioned amount. It also found that out of 36 tested local bodies, waste management facility was approved only in seven. Among these, the facilities were fully operational in only three.
*Revenue loss on closure of slaughterhouse: In the CAG report on panchayati raj institutions and urban bodies ending March 2015, the report pointed out revenue loss of Rs 5.37 crore for closing a slaughterhouse in Aligarh. The auditor found that closure of the slaughterhouse from April 2012 to November 2013 and then from March 2015 to November 2015 led to a total loss of Rs 5.37 crore.
*Anil Singh seen with BJP legislators: Singh who was recently suspended by BSP chief Mayawati for cross-voting in favour of BJP in the Rajya Sabha polls, was seen in the Assembly with BJP legislators. BSP Legislature Party Leader Lalji Verma, while raising the issue of security being provided to turncoats soon after the March 23 elections, said that UPCOCB can be misused in a manner in which ‘Y level’ security has suddenly been provided to two MLAs of SP (Nitin Agarwal) and BSP (Anil Singh), who had cross-voted for BJP.