Author: Jagdeep Dhankhar
Publication: The Economic Times
Date: September 6, 2008
URL: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Guest_Writer/Combating_terrorism/articleshow/3450065.cms
Introduction: o The country neither has an
anti-terror law nor is there a federal agency equipped to handle terrorist
attacks o A counter-terrorism law certainly doesn't compromise commitment
to secularism o The legislation enacted by the US, post 9/11, should be emulated
by India as few will dispute the need of such a law
Beyond doubt, India is one of the worst sufferers
of terror attacks during the past few decades. On account of the menace of
terrorism India's social harmony got disrupted and its integrity challenged.
Recent terror attacks in Jaipur, Bangalore and Ahmedabad once again brought
into sharp focus the urgent need to have zero tolerance on terrorism and an
effective counter-terrorism legislation in place.
After every serious terror attack, people
are witness to an unseemly spectacle wherein the Centre and the concerned
state government blame each other for not preventing the attack. More often
than not, there is a serious dispute as regards the nature and content of
the intelligence input made available by the central government to the concerned
state government prior to the incident.
Against the background of escalating terrorist
activities in several parts of the country in 1984 and 1985, Parliament enacted
in 1985 the first counter-terrorism law - The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act 1985, known as TADA. In 2001 and 2002 India suffered some
major terror attacks - J&K Assembly, Srinagar on October 1, 2001, Parliament
House, New Delhi, on December 13, 2001 and Swaminarayan Temple, Gandhi Nagar,
on September 24, 2002.
The government of the day promptly responded
to this terrorist violence and put in place the Prevention of Terrorism Act
2002, known as POTA. As a matter of fact, the process was initiated by the
promulgation of an ordinance in October 2001, soon after the terror attack
on the Parliament House. It is significant that the constitutional validity
of both TADA and POTA came to be challenged at various times and the Supreme
Court, while sustaining the legality of both TADA and POTA, found these anti-terror
legislations in order.
After POTA ceased to hold the field, some
states like Rajasthan and Gujarat took the desired steps of having a piece
of legislation in place. However, even after a long gap the constitutionally
required assent of the President has not been forthcoming. In the federal
structure of our polity, it is indeed most disturbing that the constitutional
authority has found it expedient not to respond to an issue of such grave
urgency and import. Surely, it cannot stand to reason that a piece of legislation
is good enough for Maharashtra but not appropriate for Gujarat or Rajasthan.
The situation obtaining at the moment is that
the country neither has counter-terrorism law or terror-specific law nor is
there a federal agency legally and otherwise equipped to handle such a situation
for the whole country. In a sense, there is no effective mechanism that brings
about coordination between central and state agencies in the event of a terror
attack.
If the country is to head fast towards much
needed zero-tolerance for terrorism there is no reason why its executive and
legislature do not go by the example set by the United States after September
11, 2001 terror attacks. The measures put in place by the US, post 9/11, yielded
the desired results as since then there has been no terror attacks in the
US.
The process for USA PATRIOT Act - Uniting
and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism - was initiated by the Bush administration within 13
days of the tragic 9/11 incident that brought the United States to a complete
standstill, and was passed with a huge majority of both Republicans and Democrats
and signed into law within two months, on October 26, 2001.
The aim of the USA PATRIOT Act was to make
America a more secure place and to prevent and if possible eliminate any such
mishaps in the future. It was indeed an effective response by the US executive
and legislature to deal with terrorism. The Act enabled the law enforcement
agencies to counter terrorism by permitting secret searches, conduct surveillance
and detain a non-citizen on a mere suspicion base.
It is indeed incomprehensible that in a country
where the highest court sustained the constitutional validity of TADA and
POTA and where there is need for such a legislation at the moment, the government
is dithering from taking the desired steps. The discordant voices of senior
Union ministers, over ban on SIMI is bound to alarm all well-meaning citizens.
No amount of political expediency can justify anything that will compromise
the country's integrity and sovereignty.
A counter-terrorism law certainly doesn't
compromise commitment to secularism. The legislation enacted by the US post
9/11 should be emulated by India, as few will dispute the need for such legislation
in our country. The situation on this front in the country is indeed grim
and explosive.
Those in the executive and legislature enjoined
with the constitutional obligation need to spur into action to give the country
much-needed counter-terrorism laws and machinery. There is no reason why the
US example cannot be emulated and why steps that were taken by the government
of the day after attack on Parliament House in December, 2001 be repeated.
Time, for sure, is running out for all.
(The author is senior advocate, Supreme Court)
