Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act - Use and Abuse

Use and Abuse

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 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 Act, 1985- Section 3- 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 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. -- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 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 degree methods for extracting confession from the alleged accused. —Confession - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 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. —Confession-Torture Is such a terrible thing when a person is under torture, he will confess to almost any crime. ---- This Judgment has been once again relied upon by the same bench in the case of 2011 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 Act, 1987 – Section 3—Unlawful Activities 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 which makes mere membership of a banned organization a criminal act.