Amid uproar in the House, the BJP-led Shivraj Singh Chouhan government presented ‘Macoca’ like anti-terrorist Bill in the state Assembly today, which was passed by 61 votes. The Congress and Bahujan Samaj Party members created a ruckus in the House in protest against the Bill. According to them, "The Constitution does not permit the state to present a Bill or pass a legislation on an important and sensitive subject like anti-terrorism and organised crime." If given Center's accent, the Bill defines Capital Punishment and fine of Rs 5 lakh for an unlawful activity and organised crime. Main Opposition members of the Congress Govind Singh and Arif Aqueel vociferously protested it and tore the copies of the Bill.
During post-lunch session when the House assembled for the day, Home Minister Uma Shankar Gupta tabled the Bill, to which Leader of Opposition Chaudhury Rakesh Singh raised point of order and argued that the Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution did not define that state had any power to pass a legislation or even table a Bill on anti-terrorism and international crime.
To this, Gupta said, “This Bill is a verbatim copy of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. We have already sought the Centre's opinion on the Bill and the Union home ministry in its letter dated August 27, 2009 did not object on the Bill and advised that the state has powers to pass the Bill and only the state Governor can seek advice from the Centre pertaining to Constitutional provisions. It defines organised crime widely virtually to include any kind of unlawful activity by any unlawful means.” Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Narottam Mishra argued in favour of the Bill, saying, “Not only Maharashtra but Gujarat and Rajasthan has also passed the Bill but the Centre has not given permission so far.”
Speaker Ishwar Das Rohani turned down the Opposition's demands by saying, “The responsibility to protect its own people lies with the state. The Centre has also urged all states to make stringent laws to control terrorism. Further it nowhere seems violating constitutional provisions.”After a long debate the House passed the Bill with 61 votes against 26 votes.