When Parliament was reconstituted after the 2024 Lok Sabha election, your columnist had drawn up a list of eight laws that should be considered by the Union government and repealed to ensure justice, equality, liberty for all citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now, with the Winter Session of Parliament halfway through, let us add four more items to that list: Anti-conversion laws, provisions for police custody in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959. These laws disproportionately harm marginalised communities, restrict personal freedoms, and violate constitutional safeguards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is time for Parliament to deliberate, critically reassess and repeal these laws to uphold democratic values and protect the rights of all citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Anti-Conversion Laws: <\/strong>Anti Conversions laws date back to the 1960s but there have been some recent instances of passing these laws in the states of Gujarat,\u00a0Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and\u00a0Uttar Pradesh. These laws undermine the fundamental rights of freedom of religion and privacy guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 25 and Article 21, respectively. By requiring prior notice or state approval for conversions, these laws impose paternalistic restrictions, often leading to harassment, communal tensions, and violation of individual autonomy. They disproportionately target interfaith marriages and perpetuate discriminatory stereotypes like \u201clove jihad\u201d. These laws promote a surveillance-like state over a deeply personal choice, which is antithetical to the secular and democratic ethos of our great nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Police Custody in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita:<\/strong> In the new, hurriedly-legislated criminal laws, the words \u201cotherwise than in the detention of the police\u201d have been deleted from the section that talks about police custody. Under the previous framework, police custody was limited to 15 days within the initial period, irrespective of the overall custody period. This limitation is a crucial safeguard against the misuse of power and custodial abuse. However, the new provision effectively allows the 15-day custody period to be fragmented and spread across the entire remand period. This means an individual could be repeatedly subjected to police custody at intervals throughout 60 or 90 days, depending on the gravity of the offence. This can potentially lead to prolonged and intermittent custody, increasing the risk of custodial abuse, violation of individual rights, and undermining safeguards against arbitrary detention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act: <\/strong>The UAPA poses a grave threat to fundamental rights and democratic freedoms in India. By criminalising free speech and dissent, it undermines Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and the right to life and liberty. The law defines \u201cunlawful activity\u201d very vaguely which allows the government to designate individuals or organisations as \u201cterrorists\u201d without a fair trial. This has enabled arbitrary application of the provision in targeting activists, journalists, and students. The UAPA further erodes due process by allowing property seizures and detention without charge for up to 180 days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The law\u2019s misuse is amplified by its dismal conviction rate of only 2.8 per cent. This highlights that most individuals subjected to the UAPA endure prolonged incarceration without need for substantial evidence. This violates the right to a fair trial under Article 22 and tarnishes India\u2019s commitment to justice and equality. The UAPA, in its current form, creates a draconian environment where dissent is criminalised, and fundamental freedoms are denied to citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959:<\/strong> According to the Census of 2011, there were 4,13,670 people who were begging in India. The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, treats begging as a crime, using vague definitions, as found in Section 2(1), to include asking for alms or performing on streets for money. This unfairly targets the poor and informal workers. Provisions like Section 5, which allows people caught begging to be detained for up to three years in overcrowded \u201ccertified institutions\u201d, strip individuals of their dignity. Similarly, Section 11, which permits arrests without a warrant, opens the door to misuse and harassment. Instead of addressing root causes like homelessness and unemployment, the Act punishes people for their poverty. By criminalising acts of survival, the Act violates basic rights like right to life (Article 21) and freedom of movement and expression (Article 19) while disproportionately harming the poor, violating the right to equality before the law (Article 14 ). It shifts focus away from the government\u2019s responsibility to address poverty, ignoring why people are forced to beg. Repealing this harsh, outdated law would allow a more humane approach, treating poverty as a social issue and helping vulnerable communities with dignity and care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n PS: Of the eight laws which this column had suggested be amended or repealed (\u2018Out with the bad laws\u2019, IE, June, 21) one was The Aircraft Act, 1934. The Bill to replace the Act was passed in the Lok Sabha in August, and in the Rajya Sabha yesterday. One done, 11 to go!<\/p>\n\n\n\n