To Curb Gun Problem, Make Bail Provisions More Stringent Like PMLA; Reverse Burden Of Proof: Amicus Tells Supreme Court

Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu, the amicus curiae in an ongoing suo motu case in the Supreme Court aimed at curbing the proliferation of unlicensed firearms, has suggested making bail provisions under the Arms Act, Explosives Act, and Explosive Substances Act more stringent, akin to those in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Notably, Nagamuthu has also recommended a reversal of the burden of proof. In other words, according to the senior counsel, the court should presume the guilt of the accused on proof of certain foundational facts, unless the contrary is proved by the accused. In his latest written submissions, the amicus curiae has submitted a series of suggestions after careful consideration and consultation with experts in the field, to address India's rising gun problem. He has insisted that this is an issue that requires the urgent attention of the union and state governments, urging them to collaboratively come up with innovative methods on a 'war footing' or risk the situation spiralling out of control. First and foremost, Nagamuthu has suggested that the central government establishes a committee of experts comprising individuals with substantial experience and specialized knowledge, and tasked with studying inputs from various sources, including the state and union governments, other countries, and subject-matter experts in the field of science and technology, and formulating recommendations for curbing the 'menace' of illegal arms and ammunitions within a specific time frame, preferably one year. Other than this, the amicus curiae has proposed referring the question of potential legislative changes to the law commission, to study the inadequacies in the existing laws and within six months, to recommend amending the existing laws, or making new laws to strengthen regulatory measures in respect of, the manufacture, sale, import, export, use, possession, and storage of arms and ammunition”. The commission, the senior advocate has said, may be requested to suggest making existing provisions relating to the procedure for investigation, and inquiry, more stringent, or suggest incorporating such provisions in the new law to be made. Nagamuthu further submits – “The Indian government, in consultation with the governments of states and union territories, and considering the committee's and the law commission's reports and after extensive deliberation, may take a decision whether to amend the existing laws or to make new laws providing stringent provisions. The law should be comprehensive and exhaustive to eradicate all forms of illegal manufacturing, import, export, sale, smuggling, use, etc. The union government, instead of having discussions internally within the home department on the above areas of focus, may also involve in the deliberations other departments like defence, science and technology, law and justice, the customs and central excise, etc.” The amicus curiae's suggestions even call for the Centre to conduct quarterly meetings of the chief secretaries and police chiefs in all states and union territories to survey the situation and study the peculiar conditions prevailing in each region, along with the difficulties experienced by the state agencies in curbing the proliferation and use of illegal arms and ammunitions. Not only this, but the amicus curiae has also proposed various supplementary measures to address the issue. The supplementary suggestions put forth by him encompass multiple areas of concern and delve into potential changes in the existing laws – particularly in theprovisions relating to pre-arrest and post-arrest bail, expediting the trial, and presumption of innocence – and the establishment of special police units and courts for fast-tracking the investigations and the trials. The amendments to the Arms Act, Explosives Act, 1884, and Explosives Substances Act, 1908 that have been recommended by the amicus curiae are – Special police units for each district, or for more than one district, consisting of specially trained police officers, should be constituted, empowering them exclusively to investigate the offences under these special laws. Each special police unit should be assisted by forensic experts, more particularly, ballistic experts.The investigation should be conducted swiftly and final report should be filed without any undue delay.A special court should be constituted for each district, or for more than one district, headed by a judicial officer in the rank of a sessions judge, or additional sessions judge, exclusively to try the offences under these special laws, as well as offences that have been committed in the same occurrence.A special public prosecutor should be appointed for each special court, with an experience of not less than ten years as an advocate, having dealt with the cases under these laws.Section 438 of...

To Curb Gun Problem, Make Bail Provisions More Stringent Like PMLA; Reverse Burden Of Proof: Amicus Tells Supreme Court

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

To Curb Gun Problem, Make Bail Provisions More Stringent Like PMLA; Reverse Burden Of Proof: Amicus Tells Supreme Court

Awstika Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Awstika Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers