The bill was a revised version of Gujarat Control of Organised Crime Bill (GUJCOC), which was introduced by then Chief Minister Narendra Modi himself. It was earlier rejected in 2004 by then President Dr APJ Abdul Kalam.
Activists have termed the legislation as an attempt to declare an unproclaimed emergency.
Ahmedabad, Jan 28: The anti-terror legislation passed by Gujarat state assembly has been withdrawn since President Pranab Mukherjee refused to give his assent. The bill was a revised version of Gujarat Control of Organised Crime Bill (GUJCOC), which was introduced by then Chief Minister Narendra Modi himself. It was earlier rejected in 2004 by then President Dr APJ Abdul Kalam.
The revised legislation was passed on March 30, 2015 during the Budget Session of the state assembly. Ministry of Home Affairs had given nod to the bill earlier in September. However, President Pranab Mukherjee has refused to grant approval to the bill. After receiving the disapproved bill from Rashtrapati Bhawan, MHA has decided to withdraw it
The bill was passed in Gujarat Assembly in March 2015 despite stiff opposition.
The controversial anti-terror bill passed by Gujarat State assembly has been has been withdrawn by Home Ministry after it was sent to PresidentPranab Mukherjee for approval. The law was passed in the Gujarat Assembly in March 2015 despite opposition.
The Gujarat Control of Organised Crime (GUJCOC) Bill, which was earlier returned by the President thrice to the state government for reconsideration, was passed by a majority vote amid stiff resistance from Opposition Congress, which walked out of the House over its controversial provisions.
Section 14 of the Bill said, “Notwithstanding anything contained in the code or in any other law which is in force, the evidence collected through the interception of wire, electronic or oral communication under the provisions of any other law shall be admissible as evidence against the accused in the court during the trial of the case.”
According to Section 16 of the Bill, accused’s statement before a police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of police, will be treated as an evidence. While, Section 20 (2) (b) said stipulated time to complete probe and file the chargesheet can be exceeded to 180 days (six months) from the current stipulated time of 90 days.
Another controversial provision under the bill is section 20 (4), which reads “no accused person in this act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application, the special court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”
The cases under the act can be tried only in a special courts set up for this purpose.