Summary
A new law on the "prevention of
terrorism" in India, the Prevention of Terrorist
Activities Bill, 1998 introduced by the State Government
of Tamil Nadu in South India, was enacted by the State
Legislative Assembly on 29 May 1998. Many of the
provisions in this new law (PTA, 1998) are similar to the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1985, which was lapsed two year ago by the central
government following a nation-wide campaign by human
rights defenders and organizations,. Similar laws had
also been proposed, enacted, but later repealed in other
states of India. Human rights organizations claim that
the new law would only worsen the human rights situation
in India.
|
| Action Requested This new law is now pending the assent by
the President of India. Please write polite letters of
concern requesting the President of India not to give
assent to the bill in question; and re-examine and repeal
the said law and other similar legislations on the
principles of the indivisibility and universality of
individuals' rights and liberties as according to
international standards.
| Send letters and faxes to: |
| Mr. Kocheril Raman Narayanan, President of
India, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi 110 004,
India |
| FAX: 91-11-301-7290 |
| c.c. Copy to: |
| 1. Ms. Fatima Beevi, Governor of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India |
| 2. Mr. M Karunanidhi, Chief Minister of Tamil
Nadu, Rort St. George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India |
| 3. Diplomatic representatives accredited to
your country. |
|
Sample
Letter
| We are gravely concerned
about the passing of the Prevention of Terrorist
Activities Bill, 1998 for Tamil Nadu State by the
State Legislative Assembly on 29 May 1998. With
the fact that similar laws , including the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1985, have already been repealed in other
states in India, it raises doubts as to whether
the said bill has been thoroughly studied and
assessed. Certain provisions in the said bill
apparently contravene the spirit and principles
set out in the Indian Constitution for the
protection o human rights. Namely: the maximum
detention period for investigation before a
charge or trial of up to one year (Section 18),
vague and arbitrary definition of "terrorist
acts" punishable with the death sentence (Sections
2 and 3), the setting up of special "designated
courts" with extensive powers to try such
cases (Sections 7 to 17), the presumption that
the accused by guilty unless proven otherwise (Section
230), the seizure of properties during
investigation of such acts (Section 5), and the
admission of confessions before police officers
as adequate evidence in a trial (Section 13), etc.
We sincerely urge your good governance to not
proceed with giving the President's assent to the
said bill. We also request that the said bill and
other similar legislation's be re-examined and
repealed on the principles of the universality
and indivisibility of individuals' rights and
liberties as according to international standards.
|
|
Background
In the Statement of Objects and Reasons
in the beginning of the new law, signed by the Chief
Minister of Tamil Nadu Mr. M. Karunanidhi, terrorism is
defined as a "new crime" of which "stringent
action against such activists" must be taken to
"maintain Law and Order and for public tranquillity".
Human rights activists have reason to believe that this
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Terrorist Activities Bill, 1998
has been proposed in the aftermath of bomb attacks in the
southern city of Coimbatore prepetrated allegedly by
persons from the minority community of Muslims and the
recovery of explosive materials. Taking the words of the
Chief Minister, the pretext of "national security"
has ruled over individuals' rights and liberties, and any
action of the s tate would be justified.
Human rights organization, the Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry
branch of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
holds that the new law would result in further custodial
violence and abuses and would alienate the minorities
from the mainstream society. President of the state
branch of the PUCL who is a High Court lawyer commented
that the ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system
in India is not because of the lack of effective
provisions in law as what the Chief Minister had claimed,
but rather, 'the existing system is not put to good use'.
She added that the delays in the criminal justice system
and the inadequate resourcing of courts were the real
cause of the problem. Amnesty International considers the
new law to contravene the minimum safeguards set out in
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and other treaties and principles evolved for the
protection of all persons.
Moreover, this new law would only add to the catalogue of
legislations that allow for administrative detention in
violation of international standards. These other
legislations include the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders,
Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and
Slum Grabbers Act, 1982, and the India-wide National
Security Act, 1980 which is used regularly in Tamil Nadu.
With the enactment of this new law, many safeguards
normally available in India's criminal law have been
suspended. Applications of certain provisions in the
Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are being "modified"
in the new law.
Detention without charge or trial
for a period of up to one year for purpose of
investigation- Sub-section (2) of Section 18
under Part IV. This would allow for arbitrary
detention in contravention of the right to
liberty and security of the person, and would
weaken the safeguards that exist in Section 167
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Application of the death penalty
for a vaguely defined "terrorist act" -
Section 2 and 3 under part II. This vaguely
defines such acts as done "with intent to
strike terror ... or to adversely affect the
harmony amongst the different section of the
people". Such vague definitions would
increase the potential for the use of the death
penalty in such a way that contravenes the
direction of the Supreme Court of India which
sets out that the death penalty be applied only
in the "rarest of rare" cases.
Confessions to police officers be
admissible in the trial as evidence - Section 13
under Part III. This contradicts the safeguards
set out in Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Such a provision would
increase the likelihood of torture. Similar
provisions in many of India's criminal laws are
but reinforcing the lack of accountability of law
enforcement officers who have been empowered with
total immunity to prosecution when claimed acting
under this provision.
Special "designated"
courts with extensive powers to try "terrorist"
offenses - Sections 7 to 17, the whole of Part
III. This would compromise a fair trial as
certain rights to the individuals are limited or
removed. Namely: the right to equality before the
law; the right to be presumed innocent; the right
to be informed promptly of charges; the right to
have evidence extracted by force or compulsion
excluded from the trial; and the right to a fair
and public hearing. In particular, for example,
Section 5 under Part
II allows for the seizure of property
if an officer investigating an
alleged terrorist act "has
reason" to believe the property
in question has been derived from the
commission of the offense.
Section 6 under Part
II further allows for the forfeiture
of all or any of the properties of a
person convicted of terrorist act.
Section 20 under Part
IV clearly states that the Designated
Court shall presume, unless the
contrary is proved, that the accused
had committed an act so defined as
"terrorist" in this new law.
|