NEWSLINKS US EDITION SOUTH ASIA COLUMNISTS DIARY SPECIALS INTERVIEWS CAPITAL BUZZ REDIFF POLL DEAR REDIFF THE STATES ELECTIONS ARCHIVES SEARCH REDIFF
The opposition in the Lok Sabha on Monday vehemently opposed the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, branding it as "draconian", politically motivated and "destructive of basic liberties", even as the government promised adequate safeguards against its abuse.
Initiating a debate on the bill, which seeks to replace the Prevention of Terrorism (second) Ordinance, Congress leader S Jaipal Reddy said that the proposed law is "destructive of basic democratic liberties... it is prompted in all seriousness and sincerity by malignant political motive".
"It empowers the authority to put anyone in jail without bail," he said, adding that the government should remember that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Describing it as a "clone" of the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, which lapsed in 1995, Reddy said there is nothing new about the bill except some "cosmetic" changes.
Though over 76,000 people were booked under TADA, conviction rate was less than 1.5 per cent, he said.
Moving the bill for consideration and passing, Home Minister Lal Kishenchand Advani said the shortcomings of TADA have been eliminated in the proposed law, removing the scope for abuse and violation of human rights.
Asking the opposition not to oppose the bill in toto, he said that the government has incorporated inputs from the Supreme Court's judgment on TADA and suggestions of the National Human Rights Commission.
A statutory resolution disapproving POTO, which was tabled by 15 members from the Congress, Left parties, Samajwadi Party and the Muslim League, was also taken up for discussion.
Advani said there had been demand for a legislation to substitute TADA to deal with the growing menace of terrorism and the proxy war faced by the country.
The bill, drafted as per the recommendations of the Law Commission, has been discussed at various forums, he said.
In case of an open war, the Constitution provides for suspension of fundamental rights and imposition of emergency, but in case of proxy war there is no such provision, he said, adding the December 13 attack on Parliament only emphasised the need to have a special law against terrorism. He said after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the UN Security Council had also asked member states to have laws against terrorism. The opposition and ruling parties can differ on many things, including Ayodhya and economic issues, but on issues relating to security and terrorism "let us be unanimous", he said. Reddy, however, dismissed the arguments and asked: "How can a less draconian law deal with the problem which is described as much more serious than before?" On legal aspects, he said there is no precise definition of terrorism. What is needed is not a draconian legislation but good governance, preventive and investigative measures and prosecutorial perseverance, besides "inclusive and not exclusive politics", he said. Prakash Mani Tripathi of the BJP said that the stand taken by the opposition was confusing and incoherent. On the one hand it wanted to see complete elimination of terrorist menace, and on the other it was reluctant to arm the government with a suitable law to act effectively, he said. Referring to apprehensions with regard to misuse of POTO, he said maximum complaints about misuse of TADA were reported from Congress-ruled states. He, however, felt that the administration should be careful to ensure that innocent people were not harassed while implementing the provisions of this law. Hannan Mollah of the Communist Party of India-Marxist said terrorism and communalism were manifestations of the same menace and, therefore, should not be treated separately. He said communal organisations like the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad should be brought within the ambit of this bill and banned. Meanwhile, the BJP said if both Houses do not give their approval to the Bill, the government might be forced to convene a joint sitting of Parliament for its passage. "If the Rajya Sabha does not approve POTO after its passage in the Lok Sabha, the government may have to resort to the constitutional provision of convening a joint sitting of Parliament for its passage," party spokesman V K Malhotra told reporters. PTI Back to top (c) Copyright 2001 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent. Tell us what you think of this report
He said after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the UN Security Council had also asked member states to have laws against terrorism.
The opposition and ruling parties can differ on many things, including Ayodhya and economic issues, but on issues relating to security and terrorism "let us be unanimous", he said.
Reddy, however, dismissed the arguments and asked: "How can a less draconian law deal with the problem which is described as much more serious than before?"
On legal aspects, he said there is no precise definition of terrorism. What is needed is not a draconian legislation but good governance, preventive and investigative measures and prosecutorial perseverance, besides "inclusive and not exclusive politics", he said.
Prakash Mani Tripathi of the BJP said that the stand taken by the opposition was confusing and incoherent.
On the one hand it wanted to see complete elimination of terrorist menace, and on the other it was reluctant to arm the government with a suitable law to act effectively, he said.
Referring to apprehensions with regard to misuse of POTO, he said maximum complaints about misuse of TADA were reported from Congress-ruled states.
He, however, felt that the administration should be careful to ensure that innocent people were not harassed while implementing the provisions of this law.
Hannan Mollah of the Communist Party of India-Marxist said terrorism and communalism were manifestations of the same menace and, therefore, should not be treated separately.
He said communal organisations like the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad should be brought within the ambit of this bill and banned.
Meanwhile, the BJP said if both Houses do not give their approval to the Bill, the government might be forced to convene a joint sitting of Parliament for its passage.
"If the Rajya Sabha does not approve POTO after its passage in the Lok Sabha, the government may have to resort to the constitutional provision of convening a joint sitting of Parliament for its passage," party spokesman V K Malhotra told reporters.
PTI
Tell us what you think of this report
