http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2011/04/29&PageLabel=21&EntityId=Ar02100&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T
<http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2011/04/29&PageLabel=21&EntityId=Ar02100&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T> Anti-riots bill wants trials video-tapedTelcos, Hospitals Must Preserve Records: DraftSubodh Ghildiyal TNN New Delhi: The trial of offences under the proposed communal violence bill would be videographed with copies available to all the parties concerned, in what seems a radical departure to the way court trials are conducted. The demand of civil society seeks to bring transparency in discussions and court battles and recently became a bone of contention during the haggling over the joint committee for the Lokpal bill. The bill finalized by the Sonia Gandhi-chaired National Advisory Council incorporates modern investigative tools to help probe organized violence against religious and linguistic minorities and also preempt cover-ups. The proposed law says that police chiefs of violencehit districts would notify all telecom service providers and hospitals, public and private, to preserve records in appropriate data storage form as a mandatory function. They would also have to safeguard records of the Police Control Room, case diary, station diary and other documents etc. relevant to the probe and court trial. The proposal is bad news for officials enjoying the shield of government’s power to block their prosecution. The NAC document says that sections 196 and 197 of CrPC relating to mandatory “sanction for prosecution” would not apply to offences under the proposed law and a court could proceed on its own if it is satisfied about an official’s culpability for offences like giving false evidence and false certificates, harbouring offenders and destruction of electronic record. Also, the Centre and states would have to reply to the plea for sanction for prosecution within a month else it would be deemed as granted. As per proposals, the ‘national authority’ would have powers of suo motu inquiry, monitoring, summoning but it can only make recommendations which would be up to the governments to accept or reject. However, the governments would have to explain the reasons for their decision in a month. In case of disagreement with the recommendations, the governments would have to reason within a week. Importantly, the bill mandates the Centre to provide guarantee for “non repetition of offences” like measures for prevention, for effective control of armed forces, suppression of hate propaganda among others. The seven-member ‘national authority’ would be a minority-dominated body with four members from minority groups, half of them being women. *TO-DO LIST * • Cops to safeguard proberelated docus • Centre, states must reply to prosecution sanction pleas within 30 days else they will be deemed granted • Centre must guarantee ‘non-repetition of offences’ • A ‘national authority’ would have suo motu inquiry powers. If govt rejects its recommendations it has to explain the reason for its decision -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
