Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
Encyclopedia
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, commonly known as TADA, was an Indian law active between 1985 and 1995 (modified in 1987) for the prevention of terrorist activities in Punjab. It came into effect on 23 May 1985. It was renewed in 1989, 1991 and 1993 before being allowed to lapse in 1995 due to increasing unpopularity due to widespread allegations of abuse. The Act's third paragraph gives a very thorough definition of "terrorism":
The law gave wide powers to law enforcement agencies for dealing with terrorist and 'socially disruptive' activies. The police were not obliged to produce a detainee before a judicial magistrate within 24 hours. The accused person could be remanded up to 1 year in police custody, as opposed to the maximum of 90 days detainment for the accused of other crimes. Confessions made to police officers was admissible as evidence in the court of law, with the burden of proof being on the accused to prove his innocence. A special court known as TADA court was set up to hear the cases and deliver judgements pertaining to 1993 Bombay bombings. The trials could be held in camera with the identities of the witnesses kept hidden.
The number of people arrested under TADA had exceeded 76,000, by 30 June 1994. 25 percent of these cases were dropped by the police without any charges being framed. Only 35 percent of the cases were brought to trial, of which 95 percent resulted in acquittals. Less than 2 percent of those arrested were convicted. The legislation was ultimately succeeded by the controversial Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act
(2002–04) which was scrapped by the UPA
government.
Mere membership of a Banned organisation does not makes the member liable for the punishment under TADA -- It has to be essentially shown by the prosecution agency that he was not merely a passive member but was also a part of the illegal activities of the banned organisation in an active manner- 2011 [2] JCC 977- IN The Supreme Court of India- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju; Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra- Date of Judgement- 3rd February, 2011- Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam- Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 2007-- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities [Prevention] Act, 1985- Section 3[5]- Conviction of appellant for being member of ULFA, which is a banned organization- Even assuming he was a member of ULFA, it has not been proved that he was an active member and not a mere passive member- Section 3[5] cannot be read literally, otherwise it will violate Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India—mere membership of a banned organization will not make a person criminal unless her resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence. [Para 10 & 15]-- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities [Prevention] Act, 1985- Section 15- Evidence Act, 1872—Section 25—Confession- To a police officer is inadmissible vide evidence Act but is admissible in TADA cases- confession is a very weak piece of evidence- The courts have to be very cautious in accepting confession made to the police by the accused, as of wide spread and rampant practice in the police in India to use third decree methods for extracting confession from the alleged accused. [Paras 4 & 5]—Confession - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities [Prevention] Act, 1985- where the prosecution case mainly rests on the confessional statement made to the police by the alleged accused, in the absence of corroborative material- The courts must be hesitant before they accept such extra judicial confessional statements. [Para 7]—Confession-Torture Is such a terrible thing when a person is under torture, he will confess to almost any crime. [Para 7]---- This Judgment has been once again relied upon by the same bench [same justices] in the case of 2011 [2] JCC 1165- In The supreme Court of India- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra—dated – 10th February, 2011- Sri Indra Das Vs. State of Assam—Criminal Appeal No. 1383 of 2007— Terrorist and disruptive Activities [Prevention] Act, 1987 – Section 3[5]—Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967—Section 10- Even Assuming that the appellant was a member of ULFA which is a banned organization, there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the offence committed- Thus, even if he was a member of ULFA it has not been proved that he was an active member and not merely a passive member—hence appellant cannot be convicted under Section 3[5] which makes mere membership of a banned organization a criminal act. [Para 7]
"Whoever with intent to overawe the Government as by law established or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people or to alienate any section of the people or to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature in such a manner as to cause, or as is likely to cause, death of, or injuries to, any person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act."
The law gave wide powers to law enforcement agencies for dealing with terrorist and 'socially disruptive' activies. The police were not obliged to produce a detainee before a judicial magistrate within 24 hours. The accused person could be remanded up to 1 year in police custody, as opposed to the maximum of 90 days detainment for the accused of other crimes. Confessions made to police officers was admissible as evidence in the court of law, with the burden of proof being on the accused to prove his innocence. A special court known as TADA court was set up to hear the cases and deliver judgements pertaining to 1993 Bombay bombings. The trials could be held in camera with the identities of the witnesses kept hidden.
The number of people arrested under TADA had exceeded 76,000, by 30 June 1994. 25 percent of these cases were dropped by the police without any charges being framed. Only 35 percent of the cases were brought to trial, of which 95 percent resulted in acquittals. Less than 2 percent of those arrested were convicted. The legislation was ultimately succeeded by the controversial Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act
Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act
The Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act was an anti-terrorism legislation enacted by the Parliament of India in 2002. The act replaced the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance of 2001 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act , and was supported by the governing National Democratic Alliance...
(2002–04) which was scrapped by the UPA
United Progressive Alliance
The United Progressive Alliance is a ruling coalition of center-left political parties heading the government of India. The coalition is led by the Indian National Congress , which is currently the single largest political party in the Lok Sabha...
government.
Mere membership of a Banned organisation does not makes the member liable for the punishment under TADA -- It has to be essentially shown by the prosecution agency that he was not merely a passive member but was also a part of the illegal activities of the banned organisation in an active manner- 2011 [2] JCC 977- IN The Supreme Court of India- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju; Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra- Date of Judgement- 3rd February, 2011- Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam- Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 2007-- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities [Prevention] Act, 1985- Section 3[5]- Conviction of appellant for being member of ULFA, which is a banned organization- Even assuming he was a member of ULFA, it has not been proved that he was an active member and not a mere passive member- Section 3[5] cannot be read literally, otherwise it will violate Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India—mere membership of a banned organization will not make a person criminal unless her resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence. [Para 10 & 15]-- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities [Prevention] Act, 1985- Section 15- Evidence Act, 1872—Section 25—Confession- To a police officer is inadmissible vide evidence Act but is admissible in TADA cases- confession is a very weak piece of evidence- The courts have to be very cautious in accepting confession made to the police by the accused, as of wide spread and rampant practice in the police in India to use third decree methods for extracting confession from the alleged accused. [Paras 4 & 5]—Confession - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities [Prevention] Act, 1985- where the prosecution case mainly rests on the confessional statement made to the police by the alleged accused, in the absence of corroborative material- The courts must be hesitant before they accept such extra judicial confessional statements. [Para 7]—Confession-Torture Is such a terrible thing when a person is under torture, he will confess to almost any crime. [Para 7]---- This Judgment has been once again relied upon by the same bench [same justices] in the case of 2011 [2] JCC 1165- In The supreme Court of India- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra—dated – 10th February, 2011- Sri Indra Das Vs. State of Assam—Criminal Appeal No. 1383 of 2007— Terrorist and disruptive Activities [Prevention] Act, 1987 – Section 3[5]—Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967—Section 10- Even Assuming that the appellant was a member of ULFA which is a banned organization, there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the offence committed- Thus, even if he was a member of ULFA it has not been proved that he was an active member and not merely a passive member—hence appellant cannot be convicted under Section 3[5] which makes mere membership of a banned organization a criminal act. [Para 7]