Ensure that no innocent has the feeling of sufferance only because ‘my name
is Khan, but I am not a terrorist,’ Bench tells Police
No innocent person should be branded a terrorist
and put behind bars simply because he belongs to a minority community, the
Supreme Court has told the Gujarat Police.
Police must ensure that no innocent person has the feeling of sufferance
only because “my name is Khan, but I am not a terrorist,” a Bench of Justices
H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad said on Wednesday.
It ordered the acquittal of 11 persons, arrested under the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and other laws, and convicted for allegedly
planning to create communal violence during the Jagannath Puri Yatra in
Ahmedabad in 1994.
“We emphasise and deem it necessary to repeat that the gravity of the evil
to the community from terrorism can never furnish an adequate reason for invading
personal liberty, except in accordance with the procedure established by the
Constitution and the law,” the Bench said.
Being an anti-terrorist law, the TADA’s provisions could not be liberally
construed, the Bench said. “The District Superintendent of Police and the
Inspector-General and all others entrusted with operating the law must not do
anything which allows its misuse and abuse and [must] ensure that no innocent
person has the feeling of sufferance only because ‘My name is Khan, but I am
not a terrorist’.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Prasad said: “We appreciate the anxiety of
the police officers entrusted with preventing terrorism and the difficulty
faced by them. Terrorism is a crime far serious in nature, graver in impact and
highly dangerous in consequence. It can put the nation in shock, create fear
and panic and disrupt communal peace and harmony. This task becomes more
difficult when it is done by organised groups with outside support.”
‘Means more important’
But in the country of the Mahatma, the “means are more important than the
end. Invoking the TADA without following the safeguards, resulting in
acquittal, gives an opportunity to many and also to the enemies of the country
to propagate that it has been misused and abused.” In this case, Ashraf Khan
and 10 others, who were convicted under the TADA, the Arms Act and the IPC were
aggrieved that no prior approval of the SP, as mandated under the provisions,
was obtained before their arrest and recording of statements.
Appeal allowed
Allowing their appeals against a Gujarat TADA court order, the Bench said:
“From a plain reading of the provision, it is evident that no information about
the commission of an offence shall be recorded by the police without the prior
approval of the District Superintendent of Police. An Act which is harsh,
containing stringent provisions and prescribing a procedure substantially
departing from the prevalent ordinary procedural law, cannot be construed
liberally. For ensuring rule of law its strict adherence has to be ensured.”
The Bench said: “In view of our finding that their conviction is vitiated
on account of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of prior approval
under Section 20-A(1) of the TADA, the confessions recorded cannot be looked
into to establish the guilt under the aforesaid Acts. Hence, the conviction of
the accused under Sections 7 and 25(1A) of the Arms Act and 4, 5 and 6 of the
Explosive Substances Act cannot also be allowed to stand.”
No comments:
Post a Comment