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."
