Criminal Procedure Bill: Previous law is outdated, obsolete, Jethmalani counters Chidambaram

Countering Chidambaram’s criticism of Section 3, which expands the scope of the Act to include “anybody’’, Jethmalani said: “Mr Chidambaram has a problem with Clause 3 and here I agree with him…. It has been voiced in the other House as well. He mentioned certain classes, apart from convicted criminals and people arrested and facing trial.”

He said, “I am particularly concerned about detenues because we know the rigors of Emergency. We know what Mr Chidambaram’s (Congress) government did in 1975, when they detained thousands of Opposition leaders for petty offences purely on political grounds. Perhaps that part needs a second look.”

On allegations that the Bill violates the 2010 Selvi judgment, he said, “Selvi’s is the right against self-incrimination, Article 20(3). This is on testimonial compulsion; it’s a right of privacy. Now, the right of privacy is like an unruly horse. If you do not control, it gallops away. The right of privacy is available to all honest citizens, to people who are not propelled towards crime or have committed crime. Mr Chidambaram says the right of privacy should also enure for murderers, rapists, fraudsters, forgerers and terrorists. Why?’’

On Puttaswamy judgment, Jethmalani said, “If he had read the Puttaswamy’s judgment properly, he would have realised that that judgment of nine judges is replete with references that in the case of detection of crime, the right of privacy stands excluded.”

Opposition members criticise Bill

Opposition MPs demanded that the Bill be sent to a Parliamentary committee for scrutiny before it is finally passed — it was passed by a voice vote later. They called it “draconian” and in contravention of rights to liberty, privacy and dignity.

Trinamool Congress MP Sukhendu Sekhar Roy said the Bill had been brought to “throttle the voice of all those who oppose the government”.

“And why is the law being rushed through,” he asked. “Only three hours have been given to discuss this draconian Bill…. If the Bill is foolproof, (aiming at) bringing a culprit to book, then why was it not referred to the standing committee? Arrested persons and undertrial prisoners will be vulnerable in the absence of personal data protection law, which has been pending since 2019… The Bill carries the threat of DNA profiling, particularly of certain marginalised communities in the country.

“We know that 65 per cent of the undertrials belong to the SC, ST and minority communities.”

DMK’s Tiruchi Siva opposed the Bill calling it oppressive, imperious and oligarchic in nature. “This erodes the fundamental rights of citizens and raises strong questions on the right to life, right to privacy, and right to live with dignity.”

BJD’s Sujeet Kumar said that while there is a need to strengthen police investigation, with India’s conviction rates being one of the lowest in the world, there are concerns regarding certain Sections of the Bill, including Section 3. He said there are also concerns about the constitutionality of the Bill, lack of definition of what constitutes “measurements” and administrative and procedural concerns.

“Many provisions of the Bill are arbitrary,” the BJD leader said.

Supporting the Bill, YSR Congress’s V Vijaysai Reddy said, “Even though this Bill is draconian, I still support it because of the misdeeds of the Congress party, and because I support the Home Minister (Amit Shah) and appreciate his efforts.” He said the proposed law will lead to more efficient investigation and higher conviction rates.

Samajwadi Party MP Ram Gopal Yadav contended that it is an erroneous perception that technical and scientific advances lead to increased convictions, because despite advances made in technology in India, conviction rates continue to remain low.