Terrorism is a major issue not just in India but all around the globe it is undoubtedly an extremely complex issue due to its diverse origin and expanse, ideologies and motivations. Every country these days spend millions and millions on their intelligence from the government money just in hope that they could prevent the attack well before they take place. Many such operations result in successfully stopping the attack well before but this not the case for every attack some unfortunate terrorist attack takes place and shake the country from top till toe, millions of innocent people die in such attacks and not just ordinary people but many brave hearts who serve India also lose in their lives fighting for the country. Government is doing their best to prevent such kind to incidents do not repeat and haunt people in future that is there a reason why there are very stringent laws concerning terror activities which have taken place and which could have taken place.
In India, for years, adequate attention was not paid to the enactment of specific enabling domestic legislation that could effectively deny operating space and manoeuvrability to terrorist groups and their support structures that would deter them from executing any acts of terror. Consistent and effective anti-terror policies and counter terror-mechanism demanded strong national consensus and commitment as basic prerequisites. In the earlier stages, incidents of terrorism in India were generally dealt with as law and order issues and therefore investigation and prosecution in such cases largely followed the penal provisions enshrined in major laws such as the IPC, Indian Explosives Act, Indian Arms Act, and such others, while procedurally, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code were followed.
These were the basic reasons for the first two specific anti-terror legislation, namely Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985, 1987, (TADA) and Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) being eventually deleted from the statute books primarily for political expediency and lack of national will. Thus, it started the disappointing history of anti-terror legislation and discourse in India, and regrettably, the resultant weakening of efforts to deal with the problems. Strong political will and stable leadership are paramount requirements for drafting and implementing effective counterterrorism mechanism. In this context, the stated ‘zero-tolerance policy’ approach of the present government can be seen as a promising step in this direction.
It may be noted that even in the judicial trials of high profile cases of terror, such as the Parliament Attack of December 2001(The Supreme Court of India, Verdict of the Case no 373-375 of 2004 State Vs Navjot Sandhu Afsan Guru 2005), or Mumbai Terror Attack of November 2008 trial (The Supreme Court). The charge sheets were filed under the provisions of the omnibus provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The question remained whether these laws were adequate to effectively deal with the existing and evolving threat emanating from terrorism at domestic as well as global level.
Thus, currently, the only law which can be said to be exclusively an antiterrorism legislation in force in India is the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The stringent provisions pertaining to acts of terror were included therein, in 2004, after the Parliament repealed POTA. The subsequent amendment in UAPA in 2008 was considered a landmark event due to incorporation of the definition of a ‘Terrorist Act’ in Section 15, followed by a listing of specific offences to be henceforth prosecuted as terror offences under this Act (The Parliament of India 2008). In the controversial backdrop of POTA and its alleged misuse, the amendments made in the UAPA in 2008 changed the presumption of innocence into that of guilt, provided certain specific conditions were met (Ginestein 2009).
The 2013 amendment in UAPA enabled the prosecution of offences punishable under this Act even if committed outside India, This helped in running the prosecution of the Mumbai Terror strike case which was very much trans-national. The amendment further strengthened the legal framework by enabling the transnational acts as well as the act of using foreign territory and resources for planning and funding for conducting such activities which will challenge the unity, integrity, security in all aspects and sovereignty of India. These acts were clearly defined as a ‘terrorist act’ under Section 15 of the amended UAPA.
Apart from the insurgency affected states, other states in India have also enacted legislation to address the ‘law and order’ challenges. Most debated amongst all is the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act [MCOCA] with its area of jurisdiction limited to the state of Maharashtra and Delhi (Pandey 2002). The Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000 (KCOCA), followed by Naxal affected state of Chhattisgarh initiated Chhattisgarh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 [Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act, (CVJSA)] (Government of Chhattisgarh, Notification of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act 2005 2007) and certain other laws enacted recently are examples of such state-specific legislation.
Conclusion
The ‘mother’ law providing the guiding principles of investigations and trials in India revolves around the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) just as the Indian Penal Code (IPC) forms the backbone of all forms of offences committed by individuals or groups of individuals and punishments. However, with the grave nature of the terrorism, certain special powers and enabling procedures have to be incorporated in the legal system including trail by special courts and possibly even different yardsticks for admissibility of evidence etc. Such special provisions are required to facilitate speedy and effective dispensation of justice.
0 Comments