POTA by another name and just as tough

What8217;s missing in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act are POTA provisions like confessional statements being admissible as evidence, long detention periods being allowed till charges are framed and stringent conditions for bail. 8220;Sections like 16 punishment for a terrorist act or 17 punishment for raising funds for a terrorist act are sections that include verbatim provisions from the repealed POTA law,8221; points out criminal lawyer Sushil Kumar. Having dealt with terror laws for years, including POTA8217;s earlier avatar TADA, Kumar adds: 8220;Provisions that were repeatedly abused under POTA continue to be misused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.8221;

One of the similarities between the two laws is the provision of death as the maximum punishment for whoever has committed a terrorist act if it leads to the death of anyone. Even if a person has conspired or knowingly facilitated commission of such a crime, he is liable for punishment up to life imprisonment under the two laws.

The most significant change from POTA is the deletion of a provision that allowed any 8220;confessional8221; statement made by a suspect to a police officer under interrogation 8220;admissible8221; as evidence in a court of law. This provision did not exist in TADA either. Activists alleged widespread misuse of the provision, pointing out that many a time these interrogations were used against suspects without any other proof to back them up.

While POTA allowed a pre-trial detention period of 180 days without charge, a provision similar to TADA, the current Act has brought back the penal provision of 90 days, suggesting that after the expiry of this period, the suspect may be entitled for bail. However, this detention period is more than what the UK government allowed under its laws. Under controversial changes made recently, the police can now hold suspects for up to 42 days without charge. In France, this period may stretch to two years, but only for offences which are punishable with up to 10 years8217; imprisonment.

Even in case of holding a suspect in custody, the Indian law doesn8217;t fare badly. If in France, a person can be held for 48 hours before being brought before a judge, in Germany it has to be done between 24 and 48 hours. In India as in Italy, the condition is 24 hours.

Shaken by the 2004 Madrid bombings, Spain has prescribed in its penal laws and the Code of Criminal Procedure that a terror suspect can be held incommunicado for up to 13 days if there are grounds to believe that the knowledge of a suspect8217;s detention could prejudice investigation

Under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, suspects can now apply for bail in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was only permissible under POTA after one year. Besides this, while POTA put the burden of proof on the accused, the current Act makes it contingent upon the prosecution State to prove that the accused is guilty, or else the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence would stand. The Act has retained the provision that allows a suspect preclusion from prosecution on account of 8220;membership8221; only if the accused is able to prove 8220;that the organisation was not declared as a terrorist organisation when he became a member or began to profess to be a member8221;.

Even the definition of 8220;terrorist acts8221; as under TADA, POTA or the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act remains the same.