Apex court dismisses Pota petitions

The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed three writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.

While upholding every section of the Act, it made only one relaxation. It was with regard to expression of support to a banned terrorist organisation.

"Mere expression of sympathy or arrangement of a meeting, which is not intended and which does not have the effect to further the activities of any terrorist organisation or the commission of terrorist acts" would not amount to an offence under the Act, the court said.

The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the All-India Human Rights Front had challenged several sections arguing that they were prone to misuse by the authorities.

However, the unanimous judgment written by Justice Rajendra Babu and Justice GP Mathur countered such fears.

"This court has repeatedly held that mere possibility of abuse cannot be counted as a ground for denying the vesting of powers or for declaring a statute unconstitutional."

The judgment emphasised that terrorism was no ordinary "public order" problem, but a threat to the sovereignty and existence of the State. Existing laws have failed to tackle the transnational danger.

Therefore, the United Nations and international conventions had recommended strict action by democratic countries. The Act is line with these sentiments, according to the court.

The judges upheld the provision, which compelled lawyers and journalists to disclose their source of information regarding terrorist activities.

They said the security of the State was supreme. Further, such information could be asked only after obtaining a written approval from an officer not below the rank of a superintendent of police.

"Of course, the investigating officers will be circumspect and cautious in requiring them to disclose information," the judgment added.

Among the provisions challenged by the petitioners and upheld by the court are those referring to bail, abatement of an offence, unauthorised possession of goods, search, seizure and forfeiture of funds, declaration of organisations as terrorist, protection for witnesses and confession to police officers. On all these points, the court accepted the arguments of Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee.

MDMK leader Vaiko, who was detained by the J Jayalalithaa government for speaking allegedly in favour of the LTTE, a banned organisation, had also challenged the Act.

The court stated that since a criminal case had already been lodged and was pending for consideration before the special court, it would not express its views on the merits of the case.

The Supreme Court urged the special court to decide the case in the light of the principles laid down by it.