A CONSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT

Abstract

Terrorism has today become the latest threat to world peace and particularly to India’s National Security. Terrorists are improving their sophistication and abilities in all aspects of their operation and support. Weapon technology is more increasingly available, and the purchasing power of terrorist organisation is on the rise with the ready availability of both technology and trained personnel to operate it. The terrorists are not only threatening the ideals of democracy and freedom but also causing a serious challenge to the existing progress and development of mankind. There is need for stringent provision for prevention of terrorism. Shortly after the attack on India’s Parliament building in December 2001, India had passed its own anti-terrorism law, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). The law makers in India acted quickly and declared the Act to be a necessary weapon against terrorism. After facing such terrorist attacks if a law regarding terrorism is framed in a country it should be made so stringent that the culprit does not go scot-free just because of loopholes in the law. The need for special laws to combat terrorism cannot be underestimated, actually the problem lies with the implementation of laws and the abuse of powers conferred on the authorities under the special laws. In 2004, the central government had repealed POTA in place of which Unlawful Activities Prevention (amendment) Act, 2004 had come up.  The reason behind the repeal of POTA was that it was found to be violating Art. 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 20(3), 21 and 22 of the constitution and also the misuse of the provisions of this act by the police officials and other authorities.