Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. No doubt, organised crimes and terrorist activities are closely inter linked. Terrorism has now acquired global dimension and become a challenge to the entire world. Finding that the existing criminal justice system is not designed to deal with heinous crimes relating to the terrorist activities, the legislature felt necessary to enact the POTA to make provisions for preventing and dealing with, terrorist activities and matters connected therewith; and those who are entrusted with the administration are armed with the provisions to deal with such terrorist activities firmly.

Here the only point to be considered is whether these Sections exclude mens rea element for constituting offences or not. At the outset it has to be noted that Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the POTA is similar to that of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Terrorism Act, 2000 of United Kingdom. Such provisions are found to be quite necessary all over the world in anti-terrorism efforts. Sections 20, 21 and 22 are penal in nature that demand strict construction. These provisions are a departure from the ordinary law since the said law was found to be inadequate and not sufficiently effective to deal with the threat of terrorism. Moreover, the crime referred to herein under the POTA is aggravated in nature. Hence special provisions are contemplated to combat the new threat of terrorism. Support either verbal or monetary, with a view to nurture terrorism and terrorist activities is causing new challenges. Therefore Parliament finds that such support to terrorist organizations or terrorist activities need to be made punishable. Viewing the legislation in its totality it cannot be said that these provisions are obnoxious.

-'intent'. If Parliament stipulates that the 'terrorist act' itself has to be committed with the criminal intention, can it be said that a person who 'profess' (as under Section 20) or 'invites support' or 'arranges, manages, or assist in arranging or managing a meeting' or 'addresses a meeting' (as under

Section 21) has committed the offence if he does not have an intention or design to further the activities of any terrorist organization or the commission of terrorist acts? We are clear that it is not. Therefore, it is obvious that the offence under Section 20 or 21 or 22 needs positive inference that a person has acted with intent of furthering or encouraging terrorist activity or facilitating its commission. In other words, these Sections are limited only to those activities that have the intent of encouraging or furthering or promoting or facilitating the commission of terrorist activities. If these Sections are understood in this way, there cannot be any misuse. With this clarification we uphold the constitutional validity of Sections 20, 21 and 22."
"..
26. It is very seriously argued, therefore, that A-1 Pala Nedumaran is a leader, having formed an association, which has already been banned and the accused persons are his staunch supporters. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that barring the speeches, there is no overt act committed by the accused persons. He points out that the whole prosecution revolves around the speeches, which are made in the public meetings.
27. ... Learned Public Prosecutor had to suggest that there has been material on record to suggest that at least some of the accused persons have had nexus with the LTTE. There is nothing in the charge, however, on account of that nexus. Even if it is granted that there is some nexus, unless that nexus has resulted or is intended to result in a terrorist activity, it would be difficult to refuse bail to the accused persons. If the whole alleged criminal activity centres around only the speeches made in public meetings then, it will be for us to examine as to whether those speeches or any one of them is so inflammatory or so potent so as to result into a terrorist activity. We will not go into the merits of the matter at this stage for the simple reason that we are aware of our own limitations that the trial is still to take place and the case is in progress. We do not also wish to express anything as to whether those speeches per se could be spelt out any offence under Sec.21 of POTA. However, in the absence of any terrorist activity attributed to any of the accused persons, except delivering some speeches, it will be difficult to order the accused persons to remain behind the bars for more than seventeen months. It is an admitted positioin that the accused are incarcerated for the last seventeen months. ...