Retired Bombay HC Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog on Tuesday said that protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act & National Register of Citizens (NRC) seem to have stemmed from the experience in Assam where people had suffered due to the “shoddy implementation” of National Register of Citizens (NRC).
While maintaining that people’s right to protest peacefully against govt’s decisions is essential for the functioning of a healthy democracy, he said that there was no substance in the argument that people shouldn't protest on the streets.
“While speaking the truth about National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, we need to understand that the manner of implementation was so pathetic… they (govt) didn't notify the ground rules. A large number of people, including women, have suddenly become stateless. They didn't specify which document would be considered as proof of birth before a particular cut off date,” Justice Nandrajog, who retired last week after serving as the Bombay High Court Chief Justice for 10 months, told News Agency.
He added that the secretive way in which the entire issue was handled by the Union govt had led to the current protests. “Firstly, you (govt) need to lay down rules & specify the standard of proof required to establish citizenship. So, when you do it in a secretive manner, then even your best intentions look very doubtful. It should have been done in more transparent manner,” he said.
Justice Nandrajog said that without laying down the rules for proof of citizenship, the govt has introduced National Population Register (NPR) & the next step could be to get National Register of Citizens (NRC) through.
Speaking about the difficulties that people face in procuring documents to prove citizenship, he said: “Once a woman leaves home after marriage, where will she get proof stating that she was born at a particular place? If a girl in Beed (Maharashtra) got married to somebody in Haryana, she wouldn't have money to travel & get the local panchayat to certify… Even if she does, she wouldn't be through (prove citizenship) with this panchayat certificate.”
He added that while the govt hasn't specified documents that would be accepted as proof of citizenship, courts in Assam have held that Aadhaar, PAN & Voter ID cards are not valid. “People will have to wait for the govt to come up with rules that specify which documents would be accepted as proof.”
Justice Nandrajog said that the right to protest peacefully against govt’s decisions is essential. “Everyone has a right to protest against a govt policy… people have the right to support it as well. Both sides are entitled to project their views… As long as it is reasonable view, the govt can't say that it willn't let certain people project their view. However, protesters should protest in a manner that it doesn't reach threatening proportions,” he added.
He also pointed out that there is no substance in the argument that people shouldn't be allowed to protest on the streets. “Kindly understand that the purpose of protest is to attract public sympathy for your cause. So, if you don't let people come out on streets/roads, then the purpose of the protest gets defeated. It is a delicate balance… what governance all about. It is navigating your ship through choppy waters… If all is fine, then the ship will row itself.”
On High Courts speaking about the rights of Citizenship (Amendment) Act & National Register of Citizens (NRC) protesters, Justice Nandrajog said: “I think most of HCs have done a very good job. They told the police that use of force is the last resort… You (police) just cannot start indiscriminate lathicharge against protesters.”
Recently, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court had set aside an order by a magistrate against allowing protests in Beed & said that protesters can't be called traitors, anti-nationals only because they want to oppose a law.
“You (police) cannot impose Section 144 (prevention against unlawful assembly) of CrPC without some kind of apprehension. The law is very clear that the decision is subjective… to the satisfaction of the govt. However, it needs to be based on some objective facts. If you don't have them & proceed on ‘I think it will happen’ basis, the court would rightly refuse to accept it. In a democracy, the govt must be transparent.”
Source Link
