1994 (3) TMI 379 - SC - Indian Laws

Parliament's Authority in Enacting Anti-Terror Laws Upheld

KARTAR SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB

The Parliament has the legislative competence to enact The Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities ... - Issues Involved:1. Legislative Competence2. Definition of 'Abet'3. Power to Declare 'Terrorist Affected Area'4. Validity of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1987 Act5. Section 5 of the 1987 Act6. Sections 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the 1987 Act7. Section 15 of the 1987 Act8. Section 19 of the 1987 Act9. Section 20 of the 1987 Act10. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226Summary:1. Legislative Competence:The Parliament has the legislative competence to enact The Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, and The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, under Entry 1 of List III of the Seventh Schedule.2. Definition of 'Abet':The definition of 'abet' in Section 2(1)(i)(a) of the 1987 Act is vague and imprecise. To avoid ambiguity, 'actual knowledge or reason to believe' should be read into the provision.3. Power to Declare 'Terrorist Affected Area':The power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the 1984 Act to declare any area as a 'terrorist affected area' does not suffer from any invalidity.4. Validity of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1987 Act:Sections 3 and 4 of the 1987 Act, which define and penalize terrorist and disruptive activities, are not liable to be struck down for vagueness. These sections cover acts that constitute offenses under ordinary laws but are distinguishable due to their aggravated nature.5. Section 5 of the 1987 Act:Section 5, which criminalizes the possession of unauthorized arms in specified areas, should be invoked only if there is material to show that the arms were intended to be used for terrorist or disruptive activities or were actually used as such.6. Sections 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the 1987 Act:- Section 8, dealing with the forfeiture of property, is not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.- Section 9, regarding the constitution of Designated Courts, is valid. However, no one should be appointed as a Designated Court judge who has retired from service.- Section 10 and Section 11 are upheld with the suggestion that the Central and State Governments should ensure that judges of Designated Courts have sufficient tenure of service.7. Section 15 of the 1987 Act:Section 15, which allows confessions made to police officers to be admissible, is violative of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution and is liable to be struck down. The social environment was not mature for such a drastic change, and it is destructive of basic values of the constitutional guarantee.8. Section 19 of the 1987 Act:The existing appeal provisions under Section 19 are not constitutionally invalid. However, it is suggested that a proviso be added to allow appeals to the High Court for convictions under sections other than Sections 3 and 4, with automatic transfer to the Supreme Court if the State files an appeal against acquittal under Sections 3 and 4.9. Section 20 of the 1987 Act:- Sub-sections (3) and (4)(a) do not suffer from any infirmity.- Sub-section (8) imposes a ban on bail unless specific conditions are met. The High Courts have jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain petitions in exceptional cases.10. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226:High Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Article 226 in exceptional cases, such as when proceedings under TADA are an abuse of process or taken for extraneous considerations. However, this power should be exercised sparingly and only in rare and appropriate cases.