• Legal Armor

Constitutional Rights and Conflicting Terror Laws In India

Updated: Jan 18



Introduction


It is not at all a conflicting fact that anti-terror laws are used to limit human rights. From the emerging side

of west locus, Muslims are claiming unjustified aggravation non-stop, subjugation and apprehend to emergent nations spotting these laws in opposition to political challengers, breach of constitutional rights proliferates in democratic Nations. India is a country where terrorist activities have had a persistent obstacle and suspicious variance of possessing highly oppressive conflicting terror laws.



Analysis of Terrorist Acts in India


In the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 there was almost 76,000 detainees in total

under which 25% of them were relinquished by the Police officers without any charges; hardly 35% of cases completed their trials and 95% trials resulted in acquittals. Barely 1.5 % or even lesser the rate of conviction and various reports of human liberties reported that police are misusing their massive force under the Act. In the year 1955, this law was permitted to lapse subsequent compulsion from international and national genus UN Human Rights Committee which keeps a check on the national compliance accomplished with The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

September 11, 2001, was the event which was cast off by the Indian government to explain laws passed on terrorism de novo and the fresh Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 ( POTA) was introduced. This Act was somewhat similar to the previous act in its implementation.

In Jharkhand, many tribal woman and child were apprehended and put down into the custody for long durations. Even though this certainly not seemed in 7 union territories and 15 states, over abide 14 states, almost 301 cases being registered demanding on a top of 1600 person above two and biannual if it was validated.

During this era of massive misuse of law, the new government came into power in the year 2004.

This Government gave assurance to quash POTA. Splendidly, it was previously taken into the action. A nod of compliance to repeal the controversial Act was given by the Cabinet on August 10.

The assurance was given by the government that the delight of the righteous was protected but the repeal

will not have a retrospective effect. The government pledged to come up with 2 Bills; one to alter the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,1967 and another one is to repeal POTA in the latter half of the Budget session of Parliament. The initiated alteration of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 must corroborate the execution of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 agitates concerning internal security and funding of terrorist institutions.


Conclusion


The government will consider the reasons why the POTA has been repealed and make sure that the presented alteration Act will not be another chunk of ratification that is easy to abuse.

The recommendation to get rid of abusive law principally when countries all around the world were progressing oppressive anti-terror laws, and it was a highly appreciative step. It was hoped that such laws imitated by the various other countries were being used to restraint political and civil liberties and minority communities harassed members. Hard earn civil rights cannot be withdrawn for not satisfying concern of security which is being argued. First and the foremost does not proclaim for security lacking liberty or highly curtailed liberty, which crucially dim the difference allying a dictatorship and a democracy.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Niharika Verma is a final year student, School Of Legal Studies, MUST, Rajasthan.

They can be contacted at vermaniharika0101@gmail.com

Edited By: Swathi. Ashok. Nair.

DISCLAIMER BY LEGAL ARMOR

We at Legal Armor do not endorse the Authors' views and are in no way responsible for the said views. We are just publishing the Write-ups as blogs with just light editing, and are in no way responsible for any legal claims. Legal Armor shall not be liable for any plagiarized content.