SC upholds sections of MCOCA challenged by train blast accused

Last month, while adjourning the Special Leave Petition SLP filed by 7/11 train blasts accused Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman, a division bench of the Supreme Court had observed that the judgment was due in the Bharat Shah case...

Last month, while adjourning the Special Leave Petition SLP filed by 7/11 train blasts accused Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman, a division bench of the Supreme Court had observed that the judgment was due in the Bharat Shah case which also deals with the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Control Of Organised Crime Act MCOCA and it would have a bearing on it.

With a three-judge bench of the apex court earlier this month upholding Section 21 e of MCOCA, 1999, that refers to 8220;promoting of insurgency8221; as earlier ruled by the Bombay High court, to be valid and not making inroads into the legislative powers of the Union Government, the stay imposed on the 7/11, Malegaon blasts case and the Aurangabad arms seizure case is likely to be lifted, legal experts feel. The next hearing in the Supreme Court in these three cases is scheduled for October 14.

According to the judgment, Section 2 d, e and f of MCOCA, were in accord with the findings of the High Court that they were not ultra vires of the Constitution. The apex court said it did not find any reason to take a different view from that of the High Court while upholding the validity of these provisions.

Rehman had in his SLP, which had been rejected by the Bombay High Court, challenged section 2 1e, stating that the state of Maharashtra did not have the legislative competence to enact the section which deals with 8220;promoting insurgency8221;.

It was termed as a case of 8220;colourable legislation8221; since all anti-insurgency laws fall under List I, Entry I or in any event, under Entry 97, List III, Parliament alone is competent to enact laws falling under it. The enactment of MCOCA by the state government is a serious and substantial aversion making inroads into the legislative powers of the Union. Admitting his plea on February 29, the apex court had stayed the three trials.

Special Public Prosecutor Raja Thackeray said, 8220;The court has upheld the constitutional validity of the sections under MCOCA. Since it is a three-judge bench which has given the judgment, it will have a bearing on Rehman8217;s petition which is before a division bench. Under the law now the petition stands to be dismissed or the division bench will refer it to a higher bench.8221;

The judgment also states that when the said definitions as existing in Section 2 d, e and f of the MCOCA are read and understood with the object and purpose of the Act which is to make special provisions for prevention and control of organised crime, it is clear that they are worded to subserve and achieve the said object and purpose of the Act.

Story continues below this ad

There is no vagueness as the definitions defined with clarity what it meant by continuing unlawful activity, organised crime and also organised crime syndicate. As the provisions treat all those covered by it in a like manner and does not suffer from the vice of class legislation, they cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

However, defence lawyer Shahid Azmi said, 8220;The judgment is not going to have any impact on our case. It has just upheld the constitutional validity of the sections as was done by the Bombay High Court. The court has not looked into the repercussions of including insurgency into a state act which we would be pointing it out in the arguments.8221; If the court was of a different view, we would request for our case to be referred to a higher bench, he added.