Premium
This is an archive article published on November 10, 1998

Punitive tax divides authorities

SURAT, Nov 9: Punitive Tax' was a term unfamiliar to most before the Surat district administration sought to impose it in the communally sen...

.

SURAT, Nov 9: Punitive Tax8217; was a term unfamiliar to most before the Surat district administration sought to impose it in the communally sensitive Bardoli town a couple of months ago. But its potentially explosive ramifications have turned the proposal into a catch-phrase among bureaucrats and politicians, driving a wedge between the two interest groups.

While some bureaucrats and police officials believe imposition of the tax will help buy peace in the town, their political superiors, whatever be their party loyalty, reportedly consider this too expensive a bargain to risk antagonising the majority when the trouble-makers themselves are a handful in number.

Section 50 of the Bombay Police Act allows the administration to slap the punitive tax on any trouble-prone area and is governed by the logic that monetary punishments will deter habitual offenders and potential miscreants from taking part in riots or colluding with rioters.

The money thus recovered is supposed to offset the expenses incurred in maintaining law and order; in Bardoli, last month, for instance, the expenditure on deploying the SRP and other personnel stood at Rs 50 lakhs.

Despite its powers, the tax has been applied very selectively in the country: once in Godhra in the 1970s and also in parts of Maharashtra and Bihar.

The tax proposal first came up for consideration around October 14, in the wake of a recent series of incidents of communal violence in the town. Surat Collector R M Shah even forwarded the proposal to the State government. 8220;The State government is actively considering the proposal8221;, he said.

Like Shah, Additional Chief Secretary Home P G Ramrakhiani is all for the levy. 8220;Bureaucrats are always in favour of such proposals. But the final decision rests with the government8221;, he told Express Newsline.

Story continues below this ad

That decision, if Minister of State for Home Haren Pandya8217;s statements are anything to go by, will be in the negative. Though the proposal is yet to reach him and 8220;the final decision will be taken only after studying it properly, the government is aware of the disadvantages8221;, he said.

8220;Only those who create disturbances should be punished. Why should a large majority of innocents be penalised when the trouble-makers can be counted on one8217;s fingertips?8221;, Pandya said.

If cleared by the government, a team of revenue and police officials will decide the involvement of individuals in communal offences. The tax 8212; two to 20 times the house tax paid by the person 8212; may be either imposed on habitual individual offenders, or on pockets or the entire town. To be initially introduced for an year, the time-frame can be extended indefinitely.

Admitting he was aware of the grey areas, Shah said the administration could face problems while fixing the responsibility and recovering the tax, as leaders of both communities are against its introduction.

Story continues below this ad

A senior police officer, too, pointed out, 8220;It is difficult to work out the modalities and the tax may well boomerang on the administration.8221; Another senior officer, however, said, 8220;Unprecedented steps have to be taken in unprecedented situations. Who can say, may be the tax will prove to be beneficial8221;.

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement