Home  
  Ulagam  
    ? Rajan Darbar
    ? Religion
    ? Sitharal
    ? Viewpoint
  Kondattam  
  Arangam  
  Nandhavanam        
  Vanavil  
  Anjaraipetti  
 

A Balance Sheet on POTO- Combat Terrorism while Respecting Civil Liberties

page 1 2


The present government in Centre cares less for democratic norms although its intention could be noble and genuine. For instance in the last few weeks, it took two most important decisions without taking the opposition to confidence and promulgated the Ordinances. The latest ordinance arms the government to double the Excise duties. We look at this issue in a future article after the things become very clear. This week, we would discuss on the other controversial ordinance, which is the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO). Recently, there was an article in "The Hindu" questioning almost each and every section in POTO. As this author considered it one-sided, he tries to play neutral in this article. Even this author can be faulted for his assumptions, but it is for the readers to exercise caution before taking a judgmental view on POTO.

Controversy
The crux of the controversy is whether we require a harsh legislation like POTO or we should deal with terrorism using the existing legislations. People who oppose POTO cite the misuse of TADA, the earlier avatar of POTO. Despite the attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001 there is an opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO). People say that POTO is due for a decent burial. Ordinances are arbitrary because they skip the parliamentary process before enactment. However, the government has to get the support of Parliament before the ordinance is converted to an "Act". The ruling party does not have to worry about Lower House, but it would face a defeat in the Upper House. Hence, it is also contemplated to pass it in the combined House. Although TADA was opposed under the pretext of its wide spread misuse, the then ruling party, Congress tried to extend TADA in 1995, by taking it through the full democratic process of examination by a Joint Committee. Even the British anti-terrorist legislation from which POTO reportedly got inspiration received severe criticisms in their House of Lords. Before we discuss on the merits and demerits of POTO, one thing is clear that by short circuiting the parliamentary (read democratic) process, the coalition NDA government at the Centre committed a democratic terrorism.

Three Concessions
There are three major concessions on POTO that the government came forward with to ensure its smooth passage in Parliament. Instead of its five-year life term, it was agreed upon to reduce its life span to three years. The Ordinance makes it mandatory on journalists to report every single information, whether it is fact or rumour, to the authorities. In case the informer is sued against it may incur an imprisonment for three years and if the bail plea is denied it would incur an unlimited fine. This was the major bone of contention as it is likely to affect the freedom of press. If the fear comes true, it would lead to end of our democracy. The Press and the Opposition fought against this tooth and nail. Hence, the government came out with a second concession according to which the `spy-on-your-neighbour' provisions whereby all persons (including journalists but not lawyers) have a duty to report every single rumour to the authorities is removed. This concession is totally with an intention to buy out the journalists. The Ordinance empowers the government to confiscate the terrorist property even without a trial through an administrative process. This was alleged to have ulterior motives and this clause along with the "spy-on-your neighbour" clause reminded the days of emergency to may political leaders and journalists. The hue and cry fetched the third concession from the government after which only a proper judicial process can decide appeals on such forfeiture. But, the initial peremptory forfeiture will remain in administrative hands. This goes to show that the government did not do its homework properly before passing the Ordinance. Still a section of people does not consider them as concessions. They feel that the core argument against POTO remains unanswered, which is the necessity for such a "draconian" law. They call it draconian because of their fear that it may not stop at combating terrorism but might extend its hands and affect civil liberties as TADA allegedly did. Already there are allegations that the Delhi Professor who was picked up by the police on the grounds of his involvement in December 13 attack on Parliament is maltreated with scant regard for his civil liberties while he claims himself to be "innocent". Is there a balance of these two in POTO?

Is Poto Necessary?
Those who question the necessity for POTO claim that the existing laws such as law on unlawful associations and Criminal Code etc are strong enough to combat terrorism. The TADA was passed after 1985 and it expired by 1995. The opponents of POTO claim that before 1985 and between 1995-2001, the existing laws were effective in combating terrorism. There is a big question mark on this judgement over the existing laws. The nation has gone through tough times especially in Kashmir during this period (1995-2000). The hijack of Indian Airlines flight happened in 1999. Bomb blast in Coimbatore hours before L K Advani was to attend a meeting took place in 1999. Kidnappings and extortions from the government were alarmingly on the rise. The brutal murders of priests belonging to Christianity could not have gone out of our memory. Not a single Independence Day or Republic Day went without the fear of terrorist attack. All these goes to show that something more is needed. A compromise solution would be Section 3 of POTO. The only qualm with this Section is that it includes ordinary cases of damage or disturbances to public order or preparatory offences within its scope. To tackle such offences we already have enough laws and we do not require a new POTO. Still unsatisfied we can simply amend Section 124-B of the Indian Penal Code to insert a new offence of `terrorism'. .....more

Naangal vimarsanam   © 2001 www.nilacharal.com. All rights reserved.