Date:10/01/2004 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2004/01/10/stories/2004011001361300.htm

National

Tamil Nadu's objections have no merit: counsel

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI, JAN. 9. There was no merit in the preliminary objections raised by Tamil Nadu regarding the committee's jurisdiction to go into the arrests of the MDMK leader, Vaiko and eight other party men and Nakkeeran Gopal, their counsel submitted before the Central Review Committee on the Prevention of Terrorism Act, headed by Justice A.B. Saharya, today.

R. Shanmugasundaram, counsel for Mr. Gopal, submitted that in the terms of reference notified in April 2003, it had been clearly indicated that the object of POTA was to combat terrorism. It was emphasised in the statement of reasons in the POTA Amendment Act that the powers conferred under Sec. 60 on the Central Review Committee was intended to ensure misuse and abuse of POTA.

He said there were many apex court decisions regarding the powers of administrative committees.

He disputed the contention of the Tamil Nadu Government counsel that the committee was interfering with the functions of the court. Mr. Shanmugasundaram contended that the committee was not questioning the discretion of the police officer to investigate an offence under POTA. The issue to be decided by the committee was whether the police officer had invoked POTA wrongly or not and the power to decide the question had been conferred on the committee under Sec. 60 (4) of POTA as amended.

Appearing for the Centre, senior counsel, K.N. Bhat told the panel that the preliminary objections had no merit in the light of the new amendment to the POTA Act, "if the Review Committee is of the opinion that there is no prima facie case for proceeding against the accused and issues directions, then proceedings pending against the accused shall be deemed to have been withdrawn from the date of such direction." He will continue his submissions on January 20. V. Ramasubramaniam, counsel for Mr. Vaiko and eight others, said there was no reason why the State Government should withhold the documents pertaining to Mr. Vaiko on the ground that its preliminary objections should be decided first when the committee had powers to call for such records.