‘No legal answer to motivated terror acts’

Kumar said ideologically motivated terror was posing a serious threat to the global community and that it could be tackled only through civil cooperation. He said there is no effective international law against terror and that the strengthening of domestic law was the only way to check the menace.

Pointing out loopholes in the National Investigative Agencies Act (NIAA),2008 and Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act(UAPA),2008,enacted after 9/11 Mumbai terror attack,Kumar said the investigating agency was not autonomous and hence liable to be misused by the Central government. Another loophole in NIAA,he said,was that the prosecutors were to be appointed by the Central government and the trial could be held in the absence of the accused and his/her pleaders.

Regarding inadequacies in UAPA,Nilendra Kumar said the act appeared to be obliging international demands rather than focussing on domestic compulsions and requirement to tackle terror. The act,he said,did not define the word ‘terror’,making prosecution quite difficult.

Pointing out that UAPA was the harshest law,he said that any form of resistance to the state could be labelled as threat to unity,integrity,security or sovereignty of the country and hence it was liable to be misused by politicians as had happened with TADA and subsequently POTA. “So,stronger laws don’t always lead to justice but prolonged detention,” he said.

Responding to a question on human rights of terrorists,he said the human rights groups talked about the terrorists’ rights but not of those fighting terror. The law and agencies needed to restrain themselves in custodial interrogation and incidents like Guantanamo Bay could not be allowed,he said.

Meanwhile,Chief Justice K S Radhakrishnan said human bombs were the most dangerous as they could explode any time and when the world had little control over supply of sophisticated and lethal ammunition.