The Hindu : Ignore Centre's stand on Vaiko, T.N. urges SC

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 25, 2003

National

National

Ignore Centre's stand on Vaiko, T.N. urges SC

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI April 24. The Tamil Nadu Government today strongly defended the Prevention of Terrorist Act (POTA) in the Supreme Court and said such a law was necessary for tackling the growing menace of terrorism.

It also urged the court not to take notice of the two affidavits filed by the Centre, one that the MDMK leader, Vaiko's speech was an offence under Sec. 21 of POTA and the other that the speech would not attract POTA.

Senior counsel P.P. Rao, made this submission before a Bench comprising Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice G.P. Mathur, hearing a batch of petitions questioning the validity of POTA.

Mr. Rao argued that the two contradictory affidavits filed by the Centre on March 28 and 31 "are of no assistance for deciding the vires of Sec. 21".

Pointing out that a chargesheet had been filed against Mr. Vaiko, he said it was for the special court to appreciate the evidence and give a finding whether the offence was made out or not. Hence the contradictory stand "need not be taken notice of by the court", he said and added that the "ambit and scope of Sec. 21 does not depend on the affidavits filed on behalf of the Central Government".

Mr. Rao did not agree with the Attorney-General's contention that support per se or mere expression or sympathy not intended or did not have the effect to further the activities of a terrorist organisation or commission of terrorist acts were not within the ambit of Sec. 22.

He said this provision did not permit speech in support of terrorist organisations and their activities.

He maintained that any kind of support, be it moral, monetary or material, to terrorist organisations was an offence and such offences should to be dealt with sternly to nip in the bud the menace of terrorism.

In his reply, senior counsel F.S. Nariman, appearing for Mr. Vaiko reiterated that Sec. 21 of POTA was unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

Earlier continuing his submissions, the Attorney-General, Soli Sorabjee, said: "provisions regarding bail (Sec. 49) were not onerous nor do they impose any excessive burden on the right of the accused having regard to the nature of the terrorist offence".

Stating that similar provisions were found in NDPS Act and U.P. Dacoity Act, he said it was not correct that the accused could not apply for bail during the period of one year. The right of the accused to apply for bail during the period of one year was not completely taken away, he said.

Regarding Sec. 32 dealing with confession as admissible evidence, Mr. Sorabjee said this provision was an improvement upon TADA and the guidelines suggested by the apex court had been incorporated in it. Further arguments will continue on April 29.

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

National