TNN Nov 22, 2001 | The Times of India
new delhi: the south asia human rights documentation centre (sahrdc) has described the prevention of terrorism ordinance (poto) as ”yet another blot on india’s democratic fabric”. in a booklet on poto, ”government decides to play judge and jury”, released on tuesday, sahrdc says there is not a single provision in the ordinance — except those which contradict the crpc, ipc, evidence act or the constitution — that is not covered by existing laws such as the nsa, armed forces special powers act, unlawful activities (prevention) act, prevention of seditious meetings act and a host of other acts.
the two new sections — not part of the law commission draft — pertaining to terrorist organisations and interception of communications in certain cases are covered by the unlawful activities (prevention) act and the information technology act, respectively. criticising the government’s attempt to justify poto by pointing to anti-terrorism legislation in the us and uk, the booklet says these are ”flawed arguments”. the us anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act (aedpa) in no way limits fundamental rights guaranteed to all defendants in the criminal process. preventive detention on the grounds of a person’s potential dangerousness is prohibited. even the usapatriot law passed after september 11 does not alter the criminal trial process for terrorism cases nor does it accord the executive powers immunised from meaningul judicial review. under the uk law, the extension of detention of an individual arrested under the act for up to five days with the home minister’s permission has been held as a breach of article 5(3) of the european convention on human rights. ”if the four days of additional detention can constitute a breach of echr, then the extension of detention by 180 days under poto is harsh and illegitimate,” the booklet says. calling poto more draconian than tada, sahrdc has compared the two. poto’s definitions of terms like ”terrorist activities”, ”membership of a terrorist organisation”, ”concerned with terrorism” — are sketchy and therefore ”highly susceptible to misuse”.
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-11-22/delhi/27243640_1_prevention-of-terrorism-ordinance-poto-terror-law