PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 860 · Decided: 16-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. 
B 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
DECEMBER 16, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Prevention of Terrorist Act, 2002; Sections 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 30, 
32 & 49/Constitution of India 1950; Article 19 and List I & List II to 
Seventh Schedule/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974; Section 91: 
C Constitutional validity of provision of POT A-Challenge to-Held: POTA 
has been enacted after taking into consideration well-established legal 
principles-Mere Possibility of abuse cannot be construed as ground for 
declaring the Statute unconstitutional. 
D 
State List-Subjects-Public Order-Terrorism-Held: Terrorism 
cannot be brought under the Entry 'Public Order' by any stretch of 
imagination since subjects dealt with in POTA could not be covered under 
any Entry/Entries in List II. 
Provisions of seizure/forfeiture/attachment of properties-Necessity 
E of-Held: Necessary since funding and financing play a vital role on 
fostering/promoting terrorism-Necessary safeguard to accused have been 
provided for as forfeiture could be effected by the order of the Court-
Principles of natural justice duly observed-Right to appeal available to 
accused. 
F 
G 
Power of the Investigating Officer to elicit information-Right to 
privacy-Effect on-Held: Since power is necessary in detection of terror-
ist activities/terrorists-Even Journalist/Lawyers could not withhold such 
information under the guise of professional ethics-However, in case of 
violation of any right, recourse to legal remedies available. 
Declaring an organization as a terrorist organization-Restriction on 
fundamental right of freedom to speech and expression-Held, Central 
Government empowered to take such action based on material facts-
Remedial measures provided under POTA whjch satisfies requirements of 
H audi alteram partem-Hence, restriction not unreasonable. 
860 
• 
.,._ 
.. 
,' 
I 
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. U.O.I. 
861 
Special Penal Provisions-Constitutional validity of-Special pro- A 
visions contemplated in the Act to combat the new threat of terrorism-
Hence valid. 
Production of documents-Discretionary power of the Court-Valicl-
ity of-Held valid, since it does not fix a blanket responsibility upon the B 
Court to grant permission-Moreover, it resembles with the analogous 
provision under Section 91 Cr. P.C. 
Discretion of the Court in keeping the identity of witness secret-
Validity of-Held: Identity of witness to be witlifield only in exceptional 
circt~mstances only when the life of the witness is in danger-However, it C 
would be necessary for the Special Court to evolve a mechanism to, ~atisfy 
itself about truthfulness and reliability of the witness to safeguard th~ right 
of an accused to a fair trial. 
Special provisions of recording of confession-Held: Adequate safo- D 
guards in tune with the guidelines/legal principles to be taken into 
consideration before recording confession. 
Accused booked under POTA-Bail-Additional conditions-Valid-
ity of-Held : Extended period of detention is reasonably required to 
complete investigation of overt and covert act of terrorism-After expiry E 
of one year of detention, the accused could be released on bail after 
hearing the Public Prosecutor under ordinary law-Additional conditions 
included for prevention of terrorism and also taking into account complexities 
of terrorist relaled offences-Hence reasonable. 
Words and Phrases: 
'mens rea'-Meaning of in the context of criminal jurisprudence; 
'terrorism;, 'terrorist acts '-Meaning of in the context of Prevention of 
Terrorist Act. 
In the batch of writ petitions, petitioners challenged the consti-
tutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Terrorist 
Act, 2002. 
F 
G 
It was contended for the petitioners that since some provisions of H' 
862 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A POT A, in pith and substance, fall under Entry I (Public Order) of List 
II, Parliament lacks legislative competence to enact the law. 
On behalf of Union· of India, it was submitted that acts of 
terrorists are aimed at weakening the sovereignty and integrity of the 
B country and could not be equated with mere breaches of law and order 
and disturbances of public order or public safety; that the Legislative 
competence of a State to enact laws for its security cannot denude 
Parliament of its competence under List I to enact laws to safeguard 
national security and sovereignty of India by pre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.