NEW DELHI: The Supreme ‘Court last week settled the controversy regarding the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) ‘Act by observing in the Sanjay Dutt case that “there is no reason, in law, to doubt its constitutionality or alter its proper construction.”
In its 58 page judgment, the five judges Constitution Bench, headed by Justice A.M.Ahmedi, said the TADA Act had been enacted to make special provisions for the prevention of and for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities and formatters connected therewith in the wake of escalation of terrorism.
‘The Judges pointed out that there was also maternal available for a reasonable belief that such activities were encouraged even by hostile foreign agencies which were assisting the influx of Lethal and hazardous weapons and substances into the country to escalate to these activities.
“The need of the times is, therefore, proper balancing of the interest of the nation vis-à-vis the rights of a person accused of an offence under this Act. The rights of a person found in unauthorized possession of such a weapon or substance in this context, to prove his innocence of involvement in a terrorist or disruptive activity, is to be determined,” the judges said.
‘The judges said it must, therefore, be borne in mind that any person who was being dealt with and prosecuted in accordance with the provisions of the TADA Act must ordinarily have the opportunity to show that he does not belong 10 the category of persons governed by the Act.
“It is the duty of the courts to accept a construction which promotes the object of the legislation and also prevents its possible abuse even though the mere possibility of abuse of provision docs not affects its constitutionality or construction,” the judges said, adding that abuse had to. Be checked by constant vigilance and monitoring of individual cases which had to be done by screening by suitable machinery at a high level.
Article extracted from this publication >> September 16, 1994
