We live in violent times. Terrorist violence by clandestine groups usually receives near universal condemnation. But the discourse on violence organised or encouraged by conspicuous political groups (including registered political parties) usually gets entangled in a debate on the legitimacy of their objectives. Our constitutional ethos and Gandhian legacy should leave us in no doubt that such violence deserves as unqualified a condemnation as terrorism does: both use human lives as mere means to an end, and in doing so degrade them.

In legal terms, at least three complementary responses to political violence are possible. Criminal law can punish perpetrators of violence. Electoral and other laws relating to associations can derecognise violent groups. Legal provisions dealing with victims of violence may seek to compensate them for the damages suffered. The third strategy is my main concern here. That innocent victims of political violence must be compensated for their losses is a no-brainer. How this may be efficiently achieved and who should pay are moot questions. At least three High Courts have required the state to compensate the victims of ‘riots’ (in R. Gandhi, Madras, 1989; Inderpuri General Stores, Jammu & Kashmir, 1992; and Manjit Singh Sawhney, Delhi, 2005). It is not, however, obvious that the state should be required to pay even when those responsible for the violence are identifiable and can be made directly liable.

The recent Maharashtra Ordinance amending the Bombay Police Act of 1951 is a case in point. The Ordinance was a reaction by the Maharashtra government to criticisms of its failure to deal with violence against north-Indian migrant workers, allegedly perpetrated by activists belonging to the Maharashtra Navanirman Sena (MNS). The media, by and large, reported that the amended law will provide for political parties like the MNS to be fined for the damages caused by their activists. A closer examination of the text of the Ordinance tells a slightly different story. First, the power to compensate for ‘loss or damage or death or grievous hurt’ already existed under Section 51 of the un-amended Bombay Police Act. However, the procedure required to do so was very cumbersome, demanding various actions by the state government, the District Magistrate (DM) and the Revenue Commissioner. The amending Ordinance seeks to streamline the procedure by vesting all powers in the DM alone. This simplification is welcome, although one must also consider whether the DM is indeed the most effective (and impartial) authority to impose such fines.

... contd.