Introduction
The attacks on New York and Washington , D.C. on September 11, 2001, and the attack on the Indian parliament on December 13,2001 have heightened the discourse on the need for national security legislation in India and the possible negative effects such laws may have on civil liberties and human rights . Globally national security laws appear to be being strengthened with the intention of fighting challenges to the united states and the societies in which people live, including terrorism and other internal and external threats . The Indian government enacted a new anti – terrorism law in reaction to these events , but this author felt it was needless and overly strict. Despite strong popular opposition to its enacted this law. The prevention of terrorism act 2002 was actually criticized by the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) back when it was still a law.
Historical Background And Constitute Assembly Debates
During the struggle for independence, leaders of India national freedom movement resisted the British implementation of national security laws , The goal of laws was to incite political dissension in Indian society. For instance, a number of preventive detention ‘ laws were passed by the British and are still in effect today. Despite the fact that preventative detention was frequently used arbitrarily, the British justified it by citing grave threats to national security and public order. Since the East India Company Act of 1787 was passed , Preventative detention has been a practice sanctioned by the government in India. The Act mandated the detention of any person who was suspected of participating in any correspondence or activities prejudicial or dangerous to the peace and safety of British possessions and settlements in India.
The goal of the laws was to incite political dissension in Indian society . For instance , a number of preventive detention laws were passed by the British and are still in effect today. Despite the fact that preventative detention was frequently used, arbitrarily, the British justified it by citing grave threats to national security and public order. The Act mandated the detention of any person who was suspected to participating in any correspondence or activities prejudicial or dangerous to the peace and safety of British possessions and settlements in India
The Legal And Constitutional Framework Of National Security Laws In India
According to a textual interpretation of the section , the legislation is meant to penalize actions or attempts by someone who brings into hatred or contempt or incite disaffection towards the legally established Indian government . Such actions , it could be argued , could compromise national security must be distinguished from terrorism which is covered later. The three justification provided for section 124A support the type of disaffection or hatred or contempt that the statute is meant to outlaw. Under the protections of freedom of speech and expression found in the Indian Constitution, the sediction statute was scrutinized statute was scrutinized constitutionally .Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees Indian citizens six fundamental freedoms : (1.) Freedom of speech and expression (2.) Freedom of assembly (3.) Freedom of association (4) Freedom of movement (5) Freedom of residence and settlement (6) Freedom of profession , occupation , trade or business
Legal Framework Of Anti- Terrorism Laws In India And Their Implications For Human Rights
Clearly , terrorism is a threat to national security ; thus, laws formulated to combat terrorism would also come under the preview of protecting the security of the state . It is a right and duty of every state to take all steps within it means to protect its people and institutions from acts of terror The term “terrorism” has many different meanings in both legal and literary context One of them is this: “Terrorism is narrowly defined as the explicit and deliberate (as opposed to collateral) destruction or threat of destruction of non-military, non-governmental personnel in the course of political or other forms of warfare.” 5 Most acts of terrorism target defenseless, non-combatants.
In India, strict national security regulations are necessary due to several considerations. Former State of Punjab Police Director General Mr. K.P.S. Gill has stated that: “National security law is not merely a definition of offenses, or novel patterns of criminal behavior, and the imposition of sanctions. It pertains to the entire system, including the institutional frameworks and procedures needed to secure the domain of governance, maintain order, and prevent and punish such offenses. Gill has noted that there is an urgent need for anti-terrorism laws in India, saying that “laws to combat [organized] crime and a comprehensive set of counter-terrorism laws must be written and given a permanent position in our statute books.
JUDGEMENT
The Privy Council reversed Niharendu in Emperor v. Narayan4 and declared that “excite disorder” was not included in the phrase “excite disaffection” in section 124A, proving that the logic used in Niharendu was flawed. the specific section. The Supreme Court of India questioned the constitutionality of IPC section 124A as it relates to freedom of speech and expression in Singh v. State of Bihar. The Supreme Court of India upheld the Niharendu reading of section 124A and declared that it was not ultra vires the Constitution following a thorough analysis of sedition jurisprudence and the effects of sedition laws on the liberties guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. The court determined that: any activities that fall under [section] 124A as applied to freedom of speech and expression. After a comprehensive review of sedition jurisprudence and the implications of sedition law on the freedoms of guaranteed under article 19 of the constitution.
CONCLUSION
National security and counterterrorism concerns, both before and after September 11, 2001, propelled and continue to propel nation and states to enact harsh laws and amendments that limit or restrict citizens basic rights in democracies. POTA was passed by India , a country plagued by terrorism and separatist conflict in multiple states . The argument made by the Indian NHRC that POTA was superfluous is supported in this article. It suggests that the issue with anti- terrorist laws in India is not there deficiency or scarcity, but rather their poor implemention. Most forms of terrorist threats in India are effectively contemplated by already existing laws.
contributed by: Pooja choudhary (Intern)