Search the Internet          Tips

POTO weak compared to US, British laws

Deepshikha Ghosh in New Delhi

While the opposition parties have slammed the proposed anti-terrorism law for its "draconian" provisions, legal experts say New Delhi's proposal is far weaker than similar laws that the United States and Britain are enacting.

Unlike the US and British anti-terrorism laws, that expose foreigners to the risk of being jailed on the slightest of suspicion, the government's proposal has no strong provisions covering foreigners while aiming to curb Pakistan-backed terrorism.

An Indian or any other foreign national can be put behind bars in the US or Britain on a mere whiff of suspicion of being connected with terrorist activities.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has asserted that the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance is necessary for India and is in line with US and British laws being enacted after the September terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.

Legal experts say POTO is a "fledgling" compared to the sweeping anti-terror laws under enactment in the US and Britain. And its conviction rate is likely to be even lower than that of its much-criticised predecessor Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.

The most striking provision of the US law -- Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot) -- is that it gives authorities draconian powers to prosecute non-US citizens.

The law, its 30,000 words and 270 articles making up a volume half the thickness of the Indian Constitution, enables confiscation of assets of any foreign person, country, or organisation accused of being linked to terrorist activity.

It also empowers the government to:

-- Obtain student records from colleges and universities.

-- Acquire credit card, phone call, computer use, and bank transaction records.

-- Expand wiretapping authority and install an e-mail eavesdropping programme.

-- Lock up foreigners deemed to be "terrorist suspects" for 48 hours and then deport them without presenting any evidence of wrongdoing.

"There are numerous red herrings and misleading statements being circulated in support of POTO, the main being that it is an invocation of the US law," former additional solicitor-general, Abhishekh Singhvi, told Indo-Asian News Service. "But the American law is directed only at non-citizens, or aliens."

Added lawyer P N Lekhi: "The US allows that a person's medical, financial, mental health and education records can be taken as proof of association with terrorist organisations."

A person could be arrested even for writing an article that could raise suspicions.

Lekhi said: "Our government does not realise that our situation is not similar to the US What we are facing in Jammu and Kashmir is different from the type of terrorism Americans are after."

Under POTO, meeting somebody belonging to a terrorist organisation is not an offence, quite contrary to the US law. Another significant difference is that if the detainee's confession is not recorded before a magistrate within 48 hours, he will be let off.

"POTO is a new, improved version of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, but, compared to western laws, it is a still-born child," Lekhi remarked.

The British government will allow internment without trial of suspected terrorists preceding their anti-terrorist legislation to be enacted shortly.

The order, which says the events of September 11 are "threatening the life of the nation", will allow Britain to opt out of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which bans detention without trial.

POTO is similar to the proposed British legislation in that it allows attaching or seizure of funding and property of organisations suspected of having terrorist connections.

But the similarities were "coincidental" and derived from existing laws, experts maintained.

Noted lawyer and Congress MP Kapil Sibal pointed out that if India adopted the British definition of terrorist, it would have to include outfits like Bajrang Dal.

The British definition of terrorist includes "anybody who threatens a member of a community for the purpose of extracting political or religious or other advantages".

"It is an absolute lie that POTO draws from US and British laws, and an attempt to intentionally mislead people to garner support," Sibal said.

Indo-Asian News Service

ALSO READ

The Complete Coverage: The Anti-terror Law

Back to top

Tell us what you think of this report