POTA: Panel denies changing stand

Although this clarification, recorded at a meeting of the NHRC chaired by Anand on February 21, has not been released to the media, it has been put on the commission’s website.

But, despite its claim to have not revised its view, the NHRC has for the first time in this statement acknowledged some virtue in POTA. It said that, compared with TADA, its notorious forerunner, POTA ‘‘does contain some provisions that are aimed at providing safeguards against its possible misuse.’’

One of the safeguards introduced by POTA is picked up from a Supreme Court judgment in the D K Basu case delivered, incidentally, by Anand himself. It seeks to make the system of arrest more humane.

The NHRC’s statement of February 21, however, cautions that the safeguards provided in POTA are ‘‘insufficient’’ and therefore it remains the commission’s duty to monitor the implementation of the terrorist law and ensure that its provisions are not abused or human rights violated.

Referring to its two anti-POTA statements issued in July 2000 and November 2001 under the chairmanship of Justice J S Verma, the NHRC noted that the law has since been passed at a joint sitting of Parliament.

‘‘The Commission, therefore, took the stand that it respects the constitutional process leading to the adoption of this Act, even though it had made known its opposition to the contents of the Act before it was enacted,’’ the NHRC recorded at the meeting which was attended besides Anand by members Justice Sujata Manohar and Virendra Dayal.

As it happened, soon after this meeting, the NHRC issued notices to the Centre and Jharkhand Government on instances of alleged violation of POTA in that state.