December 4, 2023
Sukhendu Sekhar Ray’s speech on The Post Office Bill, 2023
सर, मुझेलगता हैिक आज �ेज़री बेंचेज़ का माहौल ऐसा हैिक शायद वेमन मेंयह पुराना गीत गुनगुना रहेहैंिक – “कोई तूफानों सेकह देिमल गया सािहल मुझे, िदल की ऐ धड़कन ठहर जा िमल गयी मंिजल मुझे” मैंउन लोगों को बधाई देता हूँ, कां�ेस पाट� को भी बधाई देता हूँ। जो भी सफलता िजनको िमली है, लोकतं� मेंऐसा ही होता है। सर, आज के िदन एक ऐसा िबल लाया गया है, िजसके िलए मेरेमन मेंबहुत अफसोस है। मैंवह अफसोस जताना चाहता हूँ। मैंिसफर् दो क्लॉजेज़ को रेफर क�ँगा। Clause 9, sub-clause (1), शि�िंसह जी नेकहा, the Central Government may, by notification, empower any officer to cause any item in course of transmission by the Post Office to be intercepted, opened or detained in the interest of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, emergency, or public safety or upon the occurrence of any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force. Now, before I come back to this, if we look at Clause 16, sub-clause (1), it says that the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 is hereby repealed. तो पुराना ऐक्ट repeal हो गया, लेिकन क्लॉज़ 16 के सबक्लॉज़ (2) मेंिफर बताया जा रहा है, “Notwithstanding the repeal of the Act by sub-section (1), all rules, notifications and orders, made or purported to have been made under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, shall, in so far as they relate to matters for which provision is made in this Act and are not inconsistent therewith, be deemed to have been made under this Act and shall continue…”. So, on the one hand, it is repealed, on the other hand, the other provisions, which are not inconsistent with this Act, shall continue. तो हाँभी है, न भी है। Sir, I am coming back to Clause 9, sub-clause (1). This Clause, according to me, fails to specify the procedures to be followed for interception by the authorized postal officer. What is the procedure which shall be followed by the postal officer while intercepting? About national security, every citizen of this country is concerned and we are also concerned. Had there been any provision, based on the information received from Central agencies, which are dealing with the national security point, then also, we could have agreed to this provision. But, on the basis of even suspicion, can the authorized officer intercept, open, destroy or do anything which he wants to do? This is arbitrary. In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court has held that arbitrariness in executive action is anti-thesis to the rule of law. This Government has not even shown any respect to the hundreds of case laws which have established this point. The ground specified for interception is absolutely vague that anything and everything can be brought under this provision. Take, for example, the expression ’emergency’. One of the expressions is ’emergency’ other than the national security. But the expression ’emergency’ has not been defined in the Definition Clause, that is, Clause 2 of this Bill. So, what is ’emergency’? Nobody knows. This provision has given unbridled powers to the authorities concerned. I remember one of the Supreme Court verdicts, which was given in 1996 in the case of interception of telecommunications. That was a 1996 case. There, the Supreme Court held that a just and fair procedure to regulate the power of interception must exist; otherwise, it is not possible to safeguard the rights of citizens under Article 19(1)(a) as a part of Freedom of Speech and Expression and Article 21, the Right to Privacy as a part of the Right to Life and Liberty. It was reiterated in the People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. The Union of India in 2004. In this context, I would like to refer to another Act passed in this year, The Jan Viswas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 which removed all offences and penalties from many Acts including the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 in the name of Ease of Doing Business and Ease of Living. Virtually, in my opinion, the Act has turned to be the Jan aviswas Act in as much as it has ensured a free for all situations for the wrong-doers in detriment to public interest. In this Bill also, Clause 10, Sub-Clause (2) provides and I quote,” No officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability with regard to a service provided by the Post Office, unless the Officer acted fraudulently or wilfully caused loss, delay or mis-delivery of service.” However, what the consequences would be if any Postal Officer fraudulently act or wilfully cause loss to service, there is no such provision. Sir, kindly, one minute. In the parent Act of 1898, there was provision for imprisonment up to 2 years, a fine or both. That has been removed. This Bill does not whisper about the private courier services and they have been excluded from the purview of the Bill. This undermines the equality before the law. This is too much of laissez faire. Sir, finally, I submit that this Bill, if passed, shall create another avenue in transforming our democracy into a surveillance state after the Pegasusgate and that is why, I oppose this Bill in its entirety, on behalf of my party, All India Trinamool Congress. Thank you, Sir.
