The terrorism ordinance

THE UNION CABINET'S approval of the promulgation of an ordinance to combat terrorism paves the way for the law enforcing agencies to be armed with additional powers to tackle the scourge. The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, which is based on a draft Bill prepared by the Law Commission of India, is the result of a perceived vacuum which had arisen after the much-abused and widely-discredited TADA had lapsed. In some ways, the Ordinance is an intermediate measure. It does address some of the concerns raised about the TADA by building in some significant safeguards which may help in acting as a check against abuse. At the same time, it is a much more stringent piece of legislation than the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, which has now been withdrawn from the Rajya Sabha.

One of the most problematic aspects of the TADA related to the unduly restrictive provisions vis-a-vis bail, which resulted in undertrials spending unjustifiably long periods in prison. The gross injustice of this has been highlighted from time to time, most recently when as many as 45 undertrials who had spent an average of seven years in Mysore jail in connection with the so- called `Veerappan associates cases' were finally acquitted by the TADA court. The provisions for bail have been relaxed under the Ordinance via a number of measures which will hopefully give undertrials the opportunity of a much fairer hearing. At the same time, it has to be stressed that the Ordinance - which, at the end of the day, is still stern and restrictive - will continue to raise legitimate fears about abuse and victimisation.

Easily, the most disturbing clause it has introduced is the one which relates to the furnishing of information. All those who possess information which could either prevent a terrorist act or help in apprehending or prosecuting someone accused and fail to turn such details over to the authorities are now liable for punishment. Even the now-defunct TADA did not contain such a provision, which carries the real danger of being misused. It is hardly surprising that this has met with strong opposition within the media (which, by the very nature of the job it undertakes, acquires information about terrorists) and among human rights activists (who fear that such a provision could be used to bring wholly innocent people within the terrorism net).

In this extraordinary age (of aircraft-borne suicide squads and biological weaponry) there is no doubt that we need extraordinary measures to tackle the threat of terrorism. The question is how far tough- minded legislation - which, in this case, may be milder than the TADA but pretty severe all the same - will go in dealing with the menace. As the Law Commission itself has noted: ``It is not as if the enactment of such a legislation will by itself subdue terrorism''. The question is whether it will help to check terrorism more effectively. Even here, the answers are by no means clear. If a draconian TADA did not help much in curbing the scourge, how will arguably less stringent legal measures succeed in doing so?

Those in support of the new law for terrorism argue that the provisions are less severe, or at any rate no different, than those that prevail in some Western nations. Even if this is true, it is important to remember the appalling abuse of the TADA by police authorities when it was in force. The TADA experience demonstrates that legislation which gives the police excessive power runs the risk of resulting in the harassment of innocent people. Therefore, on the eve of the new terrorism ordinance taking effect, it is imperative to strike a composite note of caution, concern and consternation: ensure that the new anti- terrorism measure is not misapplied and exploited in the way that its unkind and unmourned predecessor was.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Vandalism at the Taj