The Hindu : 'POTA accused can move for bail within a year'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Apr 09, 2003

National

National

'POTA accused can move for bail within a year'

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI April 8. The Attorney-General, Soli Sorabjee, today clarified in the Supreme Court that a person detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) could move for bail within one year and that he need not wait for the expiry of the one-year period.

The Attorney-General's clarification came during the course of arguments before a Bench of Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice G.P. Mathur hearing a batch of petitions questioning the constitutional validity of POTA.

When senior counsel for the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Rajindar Sachar, was arguing that Section 49 of POTA was so harsh that bail could be filed only after one year, Mr. Sorabjee intervened and said the correct interpretation of this provision was that bail petition could be filed within one year.

It might be recalled that this stand of the Centre was quite in contrast to the arguments of the Additional Solicitor-General, Altaf Ahmed, who while appearing for Tamil Nadu (before another Bench comprising Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi), had stated that under POTA a bail petition could be filed only after one year.

He had argued on Monday that the Madras High Court judgment that under Section 49 bail could be filed before a special POTA court before the expiry of one year was erroneous. But today Mr. Sorabjee said the High Court's interpretation seemed to be correct. Mr. Sachar reiterated that as the Act did not contain adequate safeguards, it was being misused in some States. Further, most of the States had stated that they would not implement the Act. "Are we not making a mockery of the law," he asked.

Mr. Sachar cited various judgments to show how the provisions violated international covenants and declarations governing fair trial and human rights. The Act did not have any safeguards and was being abused and misused.

He said the National Human Rights Commission had categorically stated that POTA was not necessary to deal with terrorism, which could be effectively tackled with existing laws. The Government had not taken a lesson from past experience of the TADA being misused. It was on record that out of over 77,000 arrests made under TADA, the conviction rate was just 0.41 per cent. He said innovative ideas could be the right answer to the menace of terrorism and not state terrorism as it would be counter-productive. Further arguments by other counsel will continue tomorrow.

Meanwhile, P. Nedumaran, president of the Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam, detained under POTA has filed a writ petition for a declaration that POTA is unconstitutional. He said he had addressed a public meeting in Chennai on April 13, 2002, after obtaining permission. The discussions focussed on the repercussions of the press conference addressed by the LTTE supremo, V. Prabakaran, and it had nothing to do with any support to any unlawful or terrorist organisation nor did it further the activities of any such organisation.

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

National