AA Edit | Govt must walk the talk on taking relook at new laws
Amit Shah's Statement on Incorporating Changes in New Criminal Laws Marks a Constructive Approach to Governance and Law-Making.
Union home minister Amit Shah’s statement that the government is open to constructive suggestions on the three criminal laws that have come into effect on July 1 and his offer to incorporate changes, if needed, are welcome for many reasons.
For once, it shows a change in the way the NDA government approaches criticism. The NDA, in its last two terms, bulldozed its way on issues of critical national importance and did not heed or even care for any suggestions. Those from the Opposition who criticised decisions and policies were ridiculed or trashed and the advice of experts ignored. If the government now feels that it must be more open to ideas, then it bodes well for democracy. And if it walks the talk, and enters into a consultative process on law-making, then it also means that it has taken the right lessons from the results of the general election.
The Union home minister’s offer to incorporate changes, if required, is equally welcome. Law-making is a complex process in a country such as India, and the procedures have a definite role to play in ensuring the quality of the final output. Unfortunately, the last two NDA governments treated the legislature as a captive structure as if it has no dynamic of its own. Legislative processes which have evolved over the life of the republic were often given a go-by.
It may be recalled that the government interlocutors were repeatedly offering to sit across the table with farmers agitating against the three farm laws but to no avail. The consultation should have happened earlier. The government eventually had to scrap all the three laws.
When it comes to these three new criminal codes, despite it proving problematic from the very beginning, the government did not think of a change in its script and followed a similar process. It refused to concede repeated demands by the Opposition members in the two Houses and in the House panel for more time for deliberation as they would be seeking to recreate a system that had been in force for about 150 years. Despite there being no apparent emergency, it disregarded the requests and went ahead with its plan.
People across the board, from lawyers and judges to police officers and ordinary citizens, have now expressed their concerns about the three laws. While welcoming some refreshing changes, they have raised some sticking points that vary from a longer remand period to the return of the sedition law in a new form to the precedence the State would get in cases. It will serve the interest of democracy and the needs of the people if the government initiates a process to understand these and other shortcomings and rework these provisions.
The government must be realistic about the law-making process given India’s diversity, and when it comes to criminal laws, it must be ensured that they end up nourishing our democratic system, and not enfeeble it. Discussions and deliberations must be part of the process, and not a post facto affair. Putting the cart before the horse is indeed a bad idea, but when it comes to democratic processes, making amends is the second best option. But the earlier that is done, the more disasters will have been averted.