font>
14.05 hrs.
The Lok Sabha re-assembled after Lunch at five minutespast Fourteen of the Clock.
(Mr. Deputy-Speaker in the Chair)
REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS BILL
Title: Further discussion on the Repatriation of Prisioners Bill, 2002 moved by Shri I.D. Swami on 30.7.2003 (Bill passed).
SHRI P.H. PANDIAN (TIRUNELVELI): Sir, I was speaking on that day and let me continue. I will take two more minutes.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Were you on your legs?
SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : I was speaking on the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If you want to continue, you can. But it was presumed that your speech was over. Anyway, you can continue.
SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : I will continue.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Then, you are considered to be you were on your legs last time!
SHRI P.H. PANDIAN : Sir, I was referring to the International Criminal Court wherein the cases from the countries can be transferred to those courts where the offences against humanity, genocide and oppression can be dealt with according to the international law. Sir, on 17th July, 1998, after three years of discussion, a number of countries assembled there in Rome came to the conclusion for the establishment of an International Criminal Court. In that Conference, 120 countries voted in favour of a statute for creating the International Criminal Court, 21 countries, including India, abstained, and only seven countries, including the USA and China voted against it. At this juncture, I just want to know from the Home Minister on what ground India had abstained from voting in the Rome Conference for the establishment of the International Criminal Court. If there is sufficient reason, what will be the future mode of action by the Central Government to initiate any criminal prosecution against the individuals, even nations, when they offend the international criminal law? There were a number of discussions on that point only. There was a reference to the death penalty in that discussion. Whether death penalty can be imposed was also a subject matter of discussion there, in the Conference convened for the establishment of the International Criminal Court. I would say that India is a party to the UN Covenant on the Abolition of Death Penalty. So, had we abstained on this ground in that Conference or on any other ground? That is all.
(BERHAMPUR, ORISSA): Sir, I stand here in support of the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill, 2002.
Before I go into the Bill, I would like to dispel certain confusions which have cropped up day before yesterday during the debate on this Bill. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, there is a distinction between extradition and repatriation. Extradition means, a fugitive from justice of one country is to be compelled to be brought to the country where he has committed the offence for trial under the criminal procedures. For that matter, may I give the instances of Dawood Ibrahim, Iqbal Memon Mirchi, Nadeem Akhtar, Abu Salem and Quattrocchi?
These are the persons who were to be extradited for the purpose of facing trial in India.
Long back in 1962, the Extradition Act was enacted by this Parliament with a view to providing fugitive justice. For extradition, the most important thing is that the person who has taken refuge in another country should have been taken into consideration of the criminal law of that country. Section 105 and 105 (c) of the Cr.P.C. relate to extradition of the persons where the Central Government plays a very vital role. Once a person has been convicted in this country, if he is of a foreign origin and there is a request from the person concerned or his relative or anybody for that matter or the Government of origin, the question of repatriation will arise.
When a person has been convicted under section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he is confined to jail and confining to jail relates to the State Government’s activity. Special jails also could be established like Shri Lalu Prasad being put in a special jail and given all facilities given to a VIP staying in a circuit house. That is beside the point but anybody being put in a jail by the State Government is to be decided by the State Government.
As for the procedures in the Criminal Procedure Code, a person convicted in India cannot be repatriated under the Criminal Procedure Code. So, there has to be a separate procedure for that. That procedure is being brought about in the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill, 2002. There is a slight difference here. I am coming to the difference between the Extradition Act and the Bill now being discussed. In the Extradition Act, the Central Government plays a vital role whereas in the Repatriation Bill that is being considered the Central Government does play a role but it is the prisoners or the place of origin that plays a vital role.
This Bill has very clearly indicated the procedure to be followed in transferring of prisoners who have been put in jail. Now, take the case of the Purulia arms dropping. There has been a persistent demand for the release of a particular person, who was the pilot. The demand is not for the release of the person to be repatriated to the State from where he had come, he being a subject of that country. Unless we have a treaty, it would not be possible to repatriate him. There are many people who have been convicted and put inside prisons in India and there are many persons of Indian origin who have been put in jail in other countries for certain offences they had committed. When the question of repatriation comes, there is no necessity of weighing evidence as it is the case in the Extradition Act. Here it is a question of transferring this man to another country’s jail where the Criminal Procedure Code is not taken into account. That is why the Repatriation Bill has been brought before this Parliament.
There is a necessity of fulfilling six conditions under this Bill. The first and most important condition is that a treaty between the country from where he is to be repatriated and the country to which he would be repatriated should be there. If a prisoner has to be repatriated from India to another country, there must be a treaty. If there is no treaty, there must be an agreement for that particular person and that agreement has to elaborately indicate the details. When a prisoner is to be taken to another country, a notification indicating the elaborate conditions has to be issued so that there is no confusion regarding the repatriation of the prisoner.
The second condition is that there should be a notification detailing the text of the treaty. As I said, ‘treaty or otherwise’. A treaty could be there formally; and ‘otherwise’ means for a particular individual, there could be an agreement between the two countries but that agreement or that treaty has to be indicated in the notification. Whenever a prisoner is to be repatriated, that notification has to be cited. Otherwise, it would be null and void.
Thirdly, the application is to be made by the prisoner or by the representative of the prisoner whereas in the case of extradition, it is the Government, which has to take action. The criminal courts have to move and the Government of India has to take action, but here the person who has been convicted or his representative or may be the country of his origin can make a representation to the Government of India. The final factor of repatriation rests with the Government of India. The Government of India has to decide as to whether a person is to be repatriated from India to the place of his origin or not. It rests with the Central Government. But contracting State has to agree to receive the prisoner. Now, supposing, a person has asked for to be sent to United Kingdom, USA or to Russia, then the receiving State has to agree. Otherwise, there will be difficulty. We can send a prisoner to another country, but if we have to receive a prisoner in our country, vis-à-vis, there will be difficulty, in the sense where he will be kept.
Now, any prisoner in India is to be kept in the State Government’s jail. So, when a prisoner is being brought from another country to this country, that a particular State has to agree, to keep him in one of their jails. That is also a pre-condition, otherwise the Government of India or the contracting State cannot just send that man or woman to India. A jail has to be found out and jail is a State subject. So, a State has to agree on this.
Fourthly, a warrant is to be issued in India. In criminal cases, judicial officers issue warrants of confinement – whether it may be a Magistrate or a District Judge. But, here, in this provision of the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill, an Executive Officer of the level of Joint Secretary at the State Government, or a particular officer of the Central Government is to issue a warrant for repatriation of that prisoner to the State of his origin after fulfilling all the conditions. But by making mere application it does not mean that the prisoner will be sent. There are some restrictions also. This Bill has very clearly indicated it and I am very happy that the hon. Minister has projected it in a very good manner also. The limitations for repatriation have to be taken into account; that is, if the prisoner has been convicted of death penalty – the capital punishment of death—then there is no question of sending him back. Then, if anybody is accused of violating the martial law, there is no question of repatriation of that particular person.
Last but not least, the conviction is a matter prejudicial to the sovereignty, security and other interests of the State. There are many people who have come to this country. They might have committed minor offences. But by utterances, by bringing in fundamentalists to their group or by creating chaos in this country, they might have created a sense of security for this country and questioning the sovereignty of this country, they cannot be repatriated. It would be against the best interests of this country and if any other case is pending against him, he cannot be repatriated.
The last point is that a civil prisoner cannot be repatriated. That is also good. Supposing, somebody has been convicted for not paying money and all those things or for defamation of civil nature – not of criminal nature—then a civil prisoner also cannot be repatriated. These are very good provisions, which have been brought forward in this Bill itself. There are lots of agreements between 1962 and 1969. The Government of India had contracted many agreements relating to the extradition treaties. As far as my knowledge goes, Australia, USA, UK and many other countries have passed such laws and treaties have been done.
Now, so far as Monica Bedi is concerned, there is confusion for extradition because of our law and their laws are not in consonance with each other. But so far as repatriation is concerned, there is no question of weighing the evidence. It is a question of humanitarian ground. A person languishing in the jails of India could be repatriated on humanitarian grounds, but he has to undergo the imprisonment of that term which has been pronounced by the judiciary. That is most important.
So, in all respects, this is a good Bill and I support it.
(MAVELIKARA): Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I welcome this initiative. This is a welcome step and this will be beneficial for the prisoners who are in foreign jails. This Bill was introduced in May this year in this House. I think that this has gone to the Standing Committee and the Standing Committee had made certain recommendations. After that this Bill has come before this House.
I think that India has entered into agreement with only three countries and agreements with more countries are in the pipeline. By passing this piece of legislation, it will be highly beneficial for the prisoners who are in jails in foreign countries. Such a law is necessary because as Members of Parliament we are writing so many letters and we are receiving so many representations from the people regarding those who are in the jails especially in the Gulf countries. I had written so many letters regarding the prisoners who are suffering in the jails in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a country where they are having rigorous punishments. Our Embassies are always telling us that they do not have any facilities for providing legal assistance. The Indian Embassy is always turning down the proposals for legal assistance.
Now, more than 80 people from India are in the jails of Saudi Arabia for so many reasons. Most of them are from Kerala. They were cheated by the drug from Mumbai. The innocent people from Malappuram, Calicut and other parts of the State of Kerala were misled by some drug in Mumbai and they were sent to Saudi Arabia for jobs there. Actually when these people were going to Saudi Arabia, they were misused by these unscrupulous elements as carriers of drugs and when they were caught in Saudi Arabia they were sent to the prisons. So many people were given capital punishment. There are even cases where the hands of these people were removed and all these rigorous punishments were given to these people. Actually speaking, they are innocent people and they do not know the consequences of what they were doing and due to their ignorance they have been used by these kinds of unscrupulous elements.