news details |
|
|
| PSA snatches livelihood of a detainee's family | | |
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, June 13: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has been urged to issue guidelines to states for `sharing the burden of detainee's & arrestee's family till his detention comes to an end. The petition has been filed by a Mumbai based Advocate Sandeep Jalan.
The petition while making a mention of the period of detention and the rights of the detainee, speaks about the plight of a family whose bread earner is taken into custody under preventive detention laws.
In equity & in principle, when State seek to encroach upon liberty of a person in the larger public interest, the larger public reciprocate by shouldering the burden of the safety and well being of the detainee's and arrestee's family; and the State authority while acting on in the interest of the larger public, shoulders the burden of safety and well being of the detainee's family, till the time of detention.
However, presently the State is not shouldering the burden of giving any safety net to the detainee's family. The Public Safety Act (PSA) deprives a person of his personal liberty for a period of twelve months if detained for timber smuggling and two years for `posing a threat to the security of state.' During the detention period no court is empowered to entertain any suit, prosecution or any other legal proceedings for anything done or intended to be done in good faith in pursuance of the provisions of this Act. This part of the Act has been widely agitated, discussed and criticized. But what has been left out is more serious and has wreaked havoc with the families of the detainees. The PSA has no provision for maintenance of the family of the detainee. When a person, who is the lone bread earner to his family, is detained for two years his family has to beg for food and clothing.
The Jail Manual, however, makes a mention of the allowance for maintenance of the detainee's family. In Chapter 29: 52, the Jail Manual says: " Allowance for the maintenance of the family of a detainee may be granted by the government in cases where they are satisfied that the detention of the detenue has substantially affected means of subsistenance of those dependents and that the dependents do not have reasonable means of subsistence."
This provision is not mandatory. The manual has left it entirely to the discretion of the authorities to take a decision in such cases. According to renowned human rights defender, Parvez Imroz, the state is under a constitutional obligation to provide succor to the family of a detainee. "In the garb of preventing a person from endangering the security of state, the authorities snatch the livelihood of a family", he said.
According to Imroz the authorities must exercise their discretion judiciously. "As far as I know, the provision of the jail manual has never been invoked which reflects the indifference and apathy of the authorities viz-a-viz the families of the detainees", he said.
Advocate Sandeep Jalan seems concerned about this lacuna in the preventive detention laws. He has urged the NHRC to exercise it powers vested in it by the statute, to give appropriate direction to the Ministry of Law and Justice to frame appropriate guidelines for every state government to shoulder the burden of detainee's family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
