O NE MAN’S faith is another man’s superstition. And the Maharashtra government is all set to legislate the space between with the Maharashra Eradication of Black Magic and Evil and Aghori Practices Act. The state’s intention is laudable: to combat the increasing number of frauds as well as the “sinister” practices perpetrated by socalled tantriks. Unfortunately, the clumsy manner in which the Bill has been drafted has led to a number of debates and objections that have stalled its passing after it was introduced in the 2005 winter session of the State Assembly. Since then it has been passed by the Upper House of the Assembly and awaits clearance from the Lower House in the budget session scheduled to begin on March 14.

Not surprisingly, the Act has run into a number of detractors, mainly right-wing Hindu organisations who fear the Act may be misinterpreted in a manner that would impact many Hindu religious practices.

Battling them is Shyam Manav, founder of the Andha Shraddha Nirmulan Samiti, a rationalist organisation that has exposed many fraudsters in rural Maharashtra for over two decades. Manav, who has helped draft the Bill, is determined to see it through this year. Definitions, please The Bill has seen some changes since its first draft, which critics felt was worded so vaguely that it could encompass even reiki healers and spiritual figures like the Sathya Sai Baba. The criticism was taken on board and the scope of the Bill was narrowed down.

But there are still fuzzy areas that have lawyers and fundamentalists alike worked up. Chief among them is the fact that key words and phrases like ‘black magic’ and ‘aghori’ practices are not clearly defined; so too, ‘miracles’. Durgesh Samant, spokesperson, Sanathan Sansthan (an educational NGO) points out, “The word ‘superstition’ is not defined in the act. Also, they have mentioned the word ‘blind faith’ but not stated what constitutes the difference between faith and blind faith.” As a result, say the Bill’s detractors, anybody from magicians to faith healers to ‘godmen’ could be caught in its net. Says Samant, “Section 5 of this Act covers offences committed by any ‘company, undertakings, trusts or organisations.’ Many spiritual leaders have formed religious trusts and all of them would be covered by the Act. Hence it amounts to interference with religious activities.” Vinayak Shinde, lawyer, Bombay High Court, picks out a provision in Section 13 which says, “Nothing in this act shall apply to acts involving religious rites and rituals which does not adversely affect any person mentally, physically or financially.” He argues, “Since the phrase ‘adversely affect any person mentally, physically or financially’ is not defined in this Act, its dictionary meaning would have to be considered. For instance, if a person incurs an expenditure of Rs 1,000 on a puja, who is to decide whether it has affected him adversely? This section therefore impinges on the Constitutional right to practice one’s religion.” Shinde believes that it would be better to amend the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as the state is empowered to under the constitution. However, Manav believes the IPC is not fully equipped to deal with such cases (see interview).

Further, the Act provides for the appointment of ‘vigilance officers’ (police officers not below the rank of Inspector of Police) who will be empowered to “detect and prevent” offences under the Act. The vigilance officer will have the powers to enter and search any place within his jurisdiction where he suspects an offence.

Given that the offences are cognizable and non-bailable, such concerns are understandable. Any person found guilty faces imprisonment from six months to seven years and a fine from Rs 5,000 to Rs 50,000. Anyone found guilty of abetting the crime will suffer the same punishment. What’s in a name?

The Act has a long history of controversy. On August 14 2003, the Maharashtra cabinet under Chief Minister Sushilkumar Shinde had cleared the draft of the Anti Superstition Act 2003 (its original name). With vocal opposition to it, governor Mohammed Fazal refused to sign the ordinance and asked the government to pass the Bill in the state legislature.

The government then changed the name to Eradication of Jadoo Tona and Evil Practices Act. It was tabled on April 13, 2005 in the legislative assembly but was strongly opposed by MLAs of both the ruling coalition and the Shiv SenaBJP opposition. It was finally passed in the lower house on December 16, 2005 amidst protests. It now awaits its fate in the forthcoming budget session.

URL- http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/artMailDisp.aspx?article=11_03_2007_013_002&typ=0&pub=264