Will bring draft bill against black magic, aghori practices: Gujarat government to HC

Ahmedabad: The state government told Gujarat High Court it will bring a draft bill for enactment in the next session of the assembly to curb black magic practices and 'aghori' activities.

In an affidavit in reply to a PIL seeking a curb on tantrik activities by fraudsters calling themselves godmen, aghoris, ojhas and bhuvas and enactment of legislation for the same, the state Home Department said senior officers met on July 23 to discuss the matter.

"It is most respectfully submitted that the draft bill for enactment to curb the black magic and inhuman activities such as Aghori practices will be brought up in the next session of Gujarat legislative assembly," stated the affidavit dated July 31.

The matter was last heard on August 2, and will be taken up next on August 23 by the division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal.

The PIL, filed by Akhil Bhartiya Andhsraddha Nirmool Samiti, seeks action against unlawful tantrik activities in the state.

It said certain fraudsters who act as godmen, aghori, ojhas, bhuvas cheat people through their rituals and, in some cases, even sacrifice children and women.

Giving instances, the PIL said a minor girl was tortured to death by her father and uncle as part of an occult ritual, a farmer couple ended their lives in a brutal act of human sacrifice, and a witch doctor maimed and killed a two-month old baby girl.

It prayed for the court's direction to bring a legislation to curb such inhumane activities, as these are prevalent in a large number in the tribal parts of Gujarat.

It said the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhumane, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act 2013 has been enacted in the neighbouring state, and similar laws are in place in Karnataka, Orissa, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Assam.

The ignorance and inaction on the part of the Gujarat government is nothing but violation of the fundamental rights of the citizen under Articles 14, 19, 21, 25, 26 and 51A(H) of the Constitution, the petitioner contended.