Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act
| Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Parliament of India | |
| An Act to make provisions for the prevention of, and for dealing with,the terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. | |
| Citation | Act No. 15 of 2002 |
| Territorial extent | India |
| Enacted by | Joint session of Parliament |
| Date passed | 26 March 2002 |
| Date assented to | 28 March 2002 |
| Date repealed | 21 September 2004 |
| Amendments | |
| Prevention of Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Act No. 4 of 2004) | |
| Repealing legislation | |
| Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004 (Act No. 26 of 2004) | |
| Status: Repealed | |
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) was an Act passed by the Parliament of India in 2002, with the objective of strengthening anti-terrorism operations. The Act was enacted due to several terrorist attacks that were being carried out in India and especially in response to the attack on the Parliament. The Act replaced the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) of 2001 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) (1985–95), and was supported by the governing National Democratic Alliance. The Act was repealed in 2004 by the United Progressive Alliance coalition.
The bill was defeated in the Rajya Sabha (the upper house) by a 113-98 vote, but was passed in a joint session (425 Ayes and 296 Nos), as the Lok Sabha (lower house) has more seats. It was only the third time that a bill was passed by a joint session of both houses of Parliament.
The Act defined what constituted a "terrorist act" and who a "terrorist" was, and granted special powers to the investigating authorities described under the Act. In order to ensure that discretionary powers granted to the investigating agencies were not misused and human rights violations were not committed, specific safeguards were built into the Act.
Analogous to the provisions contained in TADA, the law provided that a suspect could be detained for up to 180 days without the filing of chargesheet in court. It also allowed law enforcement agencies to withhold the identities of witnesses, and to treat confessions made to the police admissible in evidence. Under the provisions of criminal law in India, a person could deny such confessions, in court, but not under POTA. However the law did have some safeguards. Any decision on bail petitions or the verdict of the special courts constituted under this Act could be appealed from, to a division bench of the High Court having jurisdiction. Also unlike TADA, it had no provision to allow preventive detention.
...
Wikipedia