The Hindu : SC admits plea by Vaiko, others

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jan 14, 2003

Front Page

Front Page

SC admits plea by Vaiko, others

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI JAN. 13. Even as the Centre justified the enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) to deal with global terrorism, the Supreme Court today admitted three petitions challenging its constitutional validity, including one filed by the MDMK leader, Vaiko, questioning Section 21 of the Act under which he was arrested on July 11 last year and is still in judicial custody.

Observing that the issues raised in the petitions needed a detailed hearing, a Bench, comprising Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice G.P. Mathur, directed that the petitions filed by Mr. Vaiko, the People's Union for Civil Liberties and the All India Human Rights and Social Justice Front be listed for final disposal in March. The Bench granted time to the Centre and the Tamil Nadu Government to file their reply to Mr. Vaiko's petition.

In his petition, Mr. Vaiko assailed Sec. 21 of the POTA, stating that its scope was very wide affecting the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

He contended that as a leader of a political party, he had only explained that at a time when peace talks were going on in Sri Lanka with the LTTE, the Centre should reconsider its stand on the ban imposed on the LTTE. However, he was arrested invoking Sec. 21 of the POTA, which required deeper interpretation.

The other two petitioners submitted that the Government had not taken a lesson from the past experience of the TADA being misused. It was on record that out of 76,000 arrests under the TADA, the conviction rate was just 0.41 per cent.

The National Human Rights Commission and other human rights groups had voiced concern over POTA on the ground that all the actions, which the Government wanted to take, could be tackled through the existing laws.

They pointed out that the Government, having failed to pass the POTA Bill in the Rajya Sabha, convened a joint session of Parliament to pass the Bill. They contended that the Act lacked legislative competence and assailed it on the ground that its provisions were liable to be misused by the Government.

Contending that there were many Draconian provisions in POTA, which were violative of the fundamental rights of citizen, they sought a declaration that the Act was ultra vires the Constitution.

Centre's justification

In its response, the Centre submitted that there was a general consensus that an anti-terrorism law was very much required in the present day when terrorism had spread its tentacles across the world through use of hi-tech weapons.

The global opinion on enacting special laws to tackle terrorism was clearly demonstrated in the `post-September 11' (in 2001) scenario. The Centre also pointed that similar laws had been enacted in the United Kingdom and in Pakistan and enactment of the POTA was, therefore, inevitable.

Further, the affidavit said that there was consensus to define terrorist acts and make the activities of persons/groups engaged in planning and perpetrating terrorist acts and financing of such acts as offences.

The law was passed at a joint sitting of the two Houses of Parliament after extensive debate and consideration and, therefore, the contentions of the petitioners were totally imaginary and baseless, the Centre said and sought dismissal of the petition.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

Stories in this Section

Internal security situation extremely grave: Advani

No compromise, says Gogoi

Deshmukh may be on his way out

Will NCP follow suit?

My case should be an eye-opener: Gilani

Cauvery meet put off, Krishna agrees to give 6 tmcft of water

Kite festival

Militant killed in encounter

Tehelka reporter granted bail

SC admits plea by Vaiko, others