Child safety: police to get more powers to monitor schools

Assembly adopts Bill to amend KarnatakaPolice Act BENGALURU, July 16, 2016:The police are set to get more powers to regulate and monitor activities of staff and management of schools in the interest of safety and security of children. In the wake of recent incidents of sexual harassment, the Karnataka Legislative Assembly on Friday adopted the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Bill, 2016 which gives additional powers to the police. The Bill, piloted by Home Minister G. Parameshwara, was adopted by the House without any discussion amid a dharna by Opposition members who are demanding the resignation of Bengaluru Development Minister K.J. George in connection with the alleged suicide of Deputy Superintendent of Police M.K. Ganapathy. The Bill states that there is a need to give more powers to the police “as negligence on the part of the staff as well as school management is being revealed in almost all the cases so far reported”. There was negligence despite booking cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act by the police, who investigate and file the final reports before the courts. Complaints authority The Bill also provides for appointment of the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned as chairperson of the District Police Complaints Authority instead of the present practice of appointing regional commissioners. This step has been taken in the wake of the High Court of Karnataka’s observation that regional commissioners were unable to serve the purpose as heads of these panels owing to their busy schedule. Similarly, provision has also been made to appoint retired civil servants not below the rank of assistant commissioner as members of these panels instead of the present practice of appointing retired civil servants not below the rank of joint secretary. Word dropped Bill also seeks to remove certain sections that are being viewed as discriminatory against transgender people. It proposes to replace the word ‘eunuch’ with ‘person’ in some sections of the Act. This follows a court case in which the transgender community argued that some sections of the Act were “discriminatory”. The Hidu