Terrorism law to have safeguards against misuse

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI, OCT. 17. The proposed ordinance on new terrorism law approved by the Union Cabinet on Tuesday is intended to tackle terrorism from within and outside the country. It will be on the lines suggested by the Law Commission with sufficient safeguards against misuse and will not be a reincarnation of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).

The ordinance will be similar to the draft `Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2000' submitted to the Government by the Commission along with its 173rd report which stated that ``a legislation to fight terrorism is today a necessity in India''. To rebut the criticism of possible misuse, Government sources say that the ordinance will incorporate the views and suggestions of human rights organisations and that safeguards have been incorporated.

The Government seems to have taken note of the Supreme Court's views that the mere possibility of abuse could not be the ground for denying the vesting of powers or for declaring a statute unconstitutional. The Law Commission, while releasing the report last year, had said: ``Here is a case of organised groups or gangs trained or inspired and supported by fundamentalists and anti- Indian elements trying to threaten the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country. It is necessary to have a special law to deal with special situation.''

According to the report as on April 2000, the ISI- sponsored terrorism and proxy war had resulted in the deaths of 29,151 civilians, 5,101 security personnel and 2,730 explosions, and security-related costs in countering ISI activities was around Rs. 64,000 crores.

Under the proposed law terrorist activities had been defined in clear terms and to attract the definition, the offender must be a member of an unlawful organisation, possess arms or bombs and indulge in a terrorist act against the security, integrity and sovereignty of the country. Under the normal criminal law, confession made to a police officer was not admissible in evidence. However, in the new law, confession made to a police officer in the rank of Superintendent of Police had been made admissible in evidence (as in the erstwhile TADA). But the same could not be used against a co-accused. There was also a safeguard that such confessions should be signed and approved by the Magistrate, before whom the person should be produced.

The guidelines suggested by the Supreme Court for grant of bail will also be incorporated in the new ordinance. If the FIR registered was not approved by the DGP within 10 days, or by the Review Committee within 30 days, the proceedings shall be withdrawn. For malicious prosecution, the police personnel would have to pay compensation to the victims. The cases would be tried by special courts after sanction was granted by the Central or the State Government and appeal would lie in the High Court.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Powell rules out U.S. mediation in Kashmir row
Next     : 'New law can be misused'