balaji@uscvax.UUCP (Balaji Narasimhan) (01/14/86)
>Date: 5-JAN-1986 18:54 >Sender: KAPUR >Subject: News Bulletin 1/4/86 > > > PUCL questions the constitutionality of Anti-Terrorist Act > ....... >According to a report in the Illustrated Weekly, >Dr. Balagopal, a professor of mathematics in Kakatiya >university in Warangal and general >secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties >Committee, was arrested in Hyderabad on November 16 on charges of having >murdered a police subinspector. >Dr. Balagopal has played a crucial role in the >last few years in exposing the police atrocities >in Andhra Pradesh. Last year alone, he brought >before the Lokayukta in Andhra 532 cases of >illegal detention and torture. He was >also instrumental in exposing >the cases of fake encounters by the police in >which at least 30 deaths occurred. > >Dr. Balagopal has been arrested under the >new Terrorist act; he can be kept in police custody >without trial for 1 year. It is not known where >he is at present being held. >He is to be tried in a designated court whose judges >are appointed by the government, the trial is >held in camera, the witnesses produced against >him will not be identified and they cannot be >effectively cross-examined either, in passing the >judgement, the judge is not bound to make a full >statement and his judgement cannot be appealed >and above all, the sentence cannot be anything >other than capital punishement if found guilty. > >A few months ago, the vice-president of the >Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee was shot >dead in his clinic by armed policemen in broad >daylight, and despite a CID inquiry, none of the >policemen involved in the attack has been >suspended or transferred. >According to the Weekly report, terrorist >activities are so loosely defined under the new >act that even a morcha can be interpreted as >terrorist. "The exercise of civil liberties has >been identified with terrorism." The Anti-Terrorist Act was initially promulgated as an ordinance. The following is about that ordinance. ARE YOU A TERRORIST? "On July 14, 1984 the Government promulgated an Ordinance with Parliament due to meet in another ten days. Called 'Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984' it surpasses all previous repressive laws. It is violative of all norms of criminal law and natural justice. It is violative of fundamental rights. And above all, it would seriously curb all democratic activity. The manner in which 'terrorist' has been defined in this Act {ordinance then}, it could be applied to workers, peasants, tribals, students and others who are fighting for their rights and against social and economic oppression. Given the provisions, it could used in any situation and against anybody. So it is important to know the implications of this law which has been implemented in Punjab, but is meant for the whole country. ....... ...the Central Government can declare any part of the country 'terrorist affected'. ... Although the Act {ordinance then} has a long list of offences which can be tried under the Special Courts set up in a 'judicial zone', certain kinds of offences directly affect democratic activity. Thus anybody protesting against the corrupt practices of a public servant, anybody who publishes any leaflet criticizing the Government or anybody using democratic modes of protest, such as 'Rasta Roko', or 'Gherao' may be dubbed a terrorist. In effect, anybody can be picked up anytime and tried by these Special Courts. Once a person is arrested under one charge or the other, like dacoity, murder etc., it may be felt that since courts are meant for disbursing justice, if the person is not guilty, then he or she would be acquited and hence 'law abiding citizens' need not be wary of these Special Courts. However, these courts are, in fact, 'special' in the sense that they hardly feel the need for any pretence of fairness in the trial. There are hardly any safeguards for the 'accused'. Once a person is dubbed a terrorist, be he a union leader, an agricultural labourer fighting for minimum wages, or a social activist protesting against government action, or a 'Naxalite', what would follow would virtually be 'legalised' murder by the state. The 'accused' cannot get anticipatory bail. Even ordinary bail shall not be given unless a public prosecutor has been heard by the court. The Central Government can constitute Additional Special Courts outside the State concerned, at the behest of the State Government. The court can hold its hearings at any place. That is it can 'sit' within the precincts of the jail, or any other protected place. The entire proceedings would be secret (in camera). The witnesses need not reveal their identities. In addition to all this, in the case of anybody ACCUSED of 'waging war against the state' the person would have the onus of proving his or her innocence in a summary trial. Against all this the only appeal lies to the Supreme Court, (not the State High Court) and that too within 30 days, as against the usual 90 days. Such a charge is PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. Thus under this act {ordinance then} people in Manipur fighting for a minimum need like drinking water can easily be dubbed 'terrorist' and can be taken away to be tried in a Special Court in Punjab. The 'accused' would have no access to civil rights lawyers, the press, and other public support. Such a person, who might have to prove his or her innocence, would have summary trial, probably, with police officers posing as witnesses. As for the 'accused', it would be impossible for a person from Manipur to produce witnesses in Punjab, particularly when no outside support is possible. Given the conditions, an appeal to the Supreme Court in Delhi would be equally impossible. And given the serious nature of some of the offences, in many cases an entirely innocent person may land up at the gallows. Another distinct possibility is that the Special Court may just record its proceedings without ever actually meeting. In the press 'alleged terrorists held in Manipur, being tried in Punjab' would be mentioned. After a month or so it would be declared that speedy justice has been done and that the terrorist has been found guilty of waging war against the state. That would be the end. Everything would seem so plausible, so legitimate. There would be no protest because after all he was a 'terrorist' not deserving any support or sympathy. But that 'terrorist' might just be one amongst us, it might be YOU." Excerpted from an article of the same title by Gobinda Mukhoty in Frontier, Calcutta, September 15, 1984.