Anti-Terrorism Laws In India

Posted on

The present article has been written by Vanshika Samir, a first-year student at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, Punjab, India. 

INTRODUCTION 

Terrorism has increased dramatically in India during the previous two decades. Bomb blasts and terrorist attacks have occurred in several places, including Jaipur, Ahmedabad, and Bangalore, as well as the Mumbai assault on 26/11. Every patriotic Indian has been shocked by the terrorist act. No civilized nation can allow such brutal inhumanity to be tolerated or endorsed in any way, shape, or form. India is dealing with a slew of issues when it comes to managing its internal security. Terrorist actions are on the rise, as are cross-border terrorist activities and rebel groups in various sections of the country. Terrorism has now taken on global proportions and has become a global challenge.

ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS IN INDIA 

Terrorism has had a significant impact on India. The reasons for terrorism in India might range from religious grounds to poverty, unemployment, and a lack of development, among other factors. Many laws have been passed in India; however, they have been met with opposition since they violate people’s fundamental rights. However, in the aftermath of India’s anti-terrorism laws, proponents have praised the legislation, claiming that it has been effective in guaranteeing the prompt trial of those accused of engaging in or aiding terrorism. However, these restrictions have been broken down over time. Anti-terrorism legislation in India has long been a source of contention. One argument is that these regulations infringe on citizens’ fundamental rights, which are guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The legislature has passed anti-terrorist legislation in the past, and the judiciary has backed it, albeit reluctantly. The National Security Act of 1980 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 are the current laws in force in India to combat terrorism. Other anti-terrorism legislation has existed in this country at various times in the past. Other anti-terrorism laws are as follows:

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

The UAPA was created to address organizations and activities that questioned India’s territorial integrity. The Act’s scope was strictly limited to dealing with threats to India’s territorial integrity. The Act was a self-contained set of laws for declaring separatist organizations illegal, for ensuring judicial adjudication and efficient financial management. The provisions also aim to control places of work of illegal associations and penalize individuals for the offense they commit. The Act has always been approached holistically, and it falls under the scope of the central list in the Constitution’s 7th Schedule. 

The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention), 1987

The second major act that came into force on 3 September 1987 was The Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 this act had much more stringent provisions than the UAPA and it was specifically designed to deal with terrorist activities in India. When TADA was enacted, it came to be challenged before the country’s Apex Court as being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of India upheld its constitutional validity on the assumption that those entrusted with such draconic statutory powers would act in good faith and for the public good in the case of Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569. However, there were many instances of misuse of power for collateral purposes. The rigorous provisions contained in the statute came to be abused in the hands of law enforcement officials. TADA lapsed in 1995.

The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999

Enforced on 24th April 1999, this was another major anti-terrorist law. This law was enacted specifically for dealing with the increase in organized crime in Mumbai, especially due to the presence of the underworld. It regulates organized crime and also includes the `promotion of insurgency’ as a terrorist act. As per the provisions, a person is presumed guilty unless he can prove his innocence. 

The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002

With the rise of cross-border terrorism, the Pakistani ISI’s ongoing offensive strategy aimed at destabilizing India, and the events of September 11th, it became necessary to enact a unique law to deal with terrorist actions. The Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002 (POTA, 2002) was enacted as a result. In Section 3 of the POTA, 2002, the terrorist act and the terrorist are explicitly defined, and the Act offers exceptional powers to the investigative agencies. The court has stated that the Act’s necessity is a question of policy and that the court cannot comment on it. To ensure fair use of the provisions of this act, it is imperative to follow the following safeguards- 

  • Without the prior approval of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, no court can take cognizance of any offense under the Act.
  • Under the Act, no officer lower in status than the Deputy Superintendent of Police can investigate crimes.
  • Under the Act, a confession made before a police officer, not below the level of Superintendent of Police is admissible as evidence if the person is brought before a magistrate within 48 hours with his confessional statement.
  • Any officer who wields authority deliberately or with mala fide intentions is subject to the Act’s penalties. It also provides for the payment of remuneration to individuals maliciously prosecuted against the act.

CONCLUSION 

It is the main attribute of terrorist operations in the form of religious terrorism, according to Indian concerns about terrorism. Religious terrorism refers to acts of terrorism committed by organizations or individuals who are motivated by religious tenets. Terrorist activities have been committed on religious grounds throughout history in the hopes of spreading or enforcing a system of belief. However, there has been an increase in terrorist activities instigated by external forces. The need of the hour is the effective and justified application of anti-terrorism laws. Such provisions provide for stringent measures against terrorism. However, misuse of such legislation often leads to human rights violations. There is a need to strike the right balance between the application of strict measures against terrorism and the protection of human rights. This can be ensured by maintaining a system of checks and balances to ensure that no misuse happens by individuals holding authoritative positions. 

Latest Posts

Archives

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *