Hindu Vivek Kendra
«« Back
No religion propagates terror: SC

No religion propagates terror: SC

Author: Pioneer News Service
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: September 6, 2002

The Supreme Court on Thursday said no religion propagated terrorism or hatred as love for all was the basic foundation of almost all the religions.

Saying that a few fanatics have distorted the views of religion to spread messages of terror, the Supreme Court upheld the life sentence awarded to all the accused in the case relating to bomb blasts at Bow Bazar area of Kolkata in 1993 which killed 69 people.

Dismissing the appeals of the accused, a three-judge Bench, comprising Chief Justice B N Kirpal, justices K G Balakrishnan and Arijit Pasayat, upheld the designated court order convicting the accused under TADA, Section 120b of IPC (criminal conspiracy) and Explosive Act.

Dwelling on the subject of terrorism while delivering the verdict, Justice Pasayat said, "Unfortunately, some fanatics who have distorted views of religion spread messages of terror and hatred. They do not understand and realise what amount of damage they do to the society. Sometimes people belonging to their community or religion also become victims."

As a result of the fanatic acts of some misguided people, innocent lives are lost and distrust replaces love and affection in the minds of the communities for others, he added.

The incident occurred on March 16, 1993, immediately after the serial blasts in Mumbai, and the motive behind it was to strike terror in people to adversely affect communal harmony amongst members of Hindu and Muslim communities. The blasts totally demolished a building and caused partial demolition of two others in B B Ganguly street resulting in the death of 69 persons and injuring many others.

Referring to the recent terrorist acts across the globe, including the September 11 strikes on World Trade Tower in New York and the December 13 attack on Parliament in Delhi, the Bench strived hard to find the definition of terrorism.

"It is a common feature that hardened criminals today take advantage of the situation and by wearing the cloak of terrorism, aim to achieve acceptability and respectability in the society; because in different parts of the country affected by militancy, a terrorist is projected as a hero by a group and often even by many misguided youth," Justice Pasayat said.

The Bench in its attempt to find a definition to the term "terrorism" found itself in proverbial "gordian definitional knot" and said "lack of agreement on definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures.

Cynics have often commented that one state's `terrorist' is another state's `freedom fighters'."

The Bench said "terrorism has not been defined under TADA nor is it possible to give a precise definition of terrorism or lay down what constitutes terrorism."

The apex court rejected the defence argument that the accused had stored the bombs for the purpose of self-defence fearing attack on Muslims in the aftermath of Babri mosque demolition and Mumbai riots.

Terming the bomb blasts at Bow Bazar as a terrorist act, Justice Pasayat said "the explosion of large number of live bombs is a clear indication of conspiracy. It was further held that it cannot be contended that if the bombs are for self-defence. Preparation and storage of bombs are per se illegal acts."

Referring to the right of private self-defence, the Bench said, "this right never commences before a reasonable apprehension arises in the mind of the accused." Justice Pasayat said "the cover of self-protection when pierced unravels a sinister design to unleash terror" and added in the case in hand "there was no evidence that there was any indication about attack on the Muslims and, therefore, the question of any reasonable apprehension does not arise."

Back                          Top

«« Back
  Search Articles
  Special Annoucements