'POTO is more draconian than TADA'

By Our Special Correspondent

TIRUPATI, NOV. 24. The South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), which is the secretariat of the Asia Pacific Human Rights Network, has, in its ``executive summary'', submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) is more draconian than the TADA in many respects.

The most striking difference, according to the report, was that while the TADA was reviewed every two years, there was no provision for review of POTO for five years. Further, it was not confined to any specified territory or situation. The executive director of the SAHRDC, Mr. Ravi Nair, in an exclusive interview to this correspondent reeled out a long list of provisions in the POTO which posed a serious threat to the rights and freedom of individuals.

For instance, the POTO can be applied even in cases of murder, robbery or theft that would normally be covered under the IPC. There were also provisions that threatened the freedom of press such as punishment for failure of disclosure of information of material assistance to the prevention, apprehension and prosecution of an alleged terrorist, it said.

Another provision empowered the government to declare an organisation as ``terrorist organisation'' without any obligation to furnish evidence. Significantly, the onus to disprove the contention rested on the so-called accused. A provision gave powers to the Centre not only to constitute special courts for the trial of POTO detenus, but also to ``interfere'' with regard to the scope of the jurisdiction of the courts.

The special court had the discretion to draw an adverse inference from the refusal of the accused to give samples of handwriting, fingerprints, footprints, photographs, blood, saliva, semen, hair or voice. It denied the benefit of ``presumption of innocence'' clause. The special court can proceed with trial even in the absence of the accused or his lawyer. It can deny to the accused his right to appeal or the right to represent. The court can hold in-camera trails to keep the identities of the witnesses a secret, the report said.

According to the SAHRDC document, ``The ordinance can easily be used by the state to silence peaceful political dissent and target minorities.'' Any anti-terrorist legislation must be subject to international scrutiny, the Government should ratify the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture and withdraw reservations to Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Convention Against Torture.

The ordinance must be subject to review by Parliament every year and must be withdrawn from the statute books if it failed to meet its objectives, the document maintained.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : 'Zahir Shah is our only hope today'
Next     : Centre not averse to joint sitting