RAJE GOVT WITHDRAWS GAG BILL

BILL PROPOSED TO BAR COURTS FROM TAKING UP PLAINTS AGAINST OFFICIALS AND MEDIA FROM DISCLOSING IDENTITY OF ACCUSED WITHOUT GOVT NOD

JAIPUR: The Rajasthan government on Monday withdrew the Criminal Laws (Rajasthan Amendment) Bill 2017 that had triggered accusations against the ruling BJP of seeking to shield politicians from complaints and attempting to gag the media.

Chief minister Vasundhara Raje announced the bill’s withdrawal in the assembly, saying an ordinance it had replaced had lapsed as well.

The bill proposed to bar courts from taking up complaints against ministers, judges, and state officials without government sanction. It also proposed to bar the media from disclosing the identity of an accused without approval, and suggested a jail term of up to two years for any violation.

The bill was introduced on October 23 last year, and referred to a select committee the next day. The bill was tabled to replace a September 6, 2017, ordinance that also allegedly sought to shield politicians, public servants, serving and former judges and magistrates from being investigated without the government’s sanction. The ordinance was challenged in the Rajasthan high court.

The select committee, which was supposed to submit its report on the bill in the budget session beginning February 5, was given an extension after it sought more time for discussions.

Following the withdrawal of the bill, state Congress president Sachin Pilot said, “Rajasthan’s image has gone down because of the stubborn attitude of this government in not shelving the bill immediately after the ordinance lapsed. The CM must explain what was the need for sending the bill to the select committee, and why the ordinance was promulgated in the first place.”

The opposition, lawyers, civil rights activists and journalists had taken to the streets to oppose the government’s move. The Rajasthan high court had also issued a notice to the Centre and state government over the “immunity” ordinance.

The government’s stated position was that it brought the ordinance, followed by the bill, to check misuse of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) section 156 (3), which deals with a police officer’s power to intestigate a cognisable case.