1. The Salient Features of Prevention of
Terrorism Act, 2002

2. Introduction
• India has been in a constant war on terrorism since independence.
From the Mandai massacre by tribal terrorists in 1980 to the most
recent Pulwama attack in 2019, there have been more than 12,000
large and small terrorist attacks in India. Hence, the government is
undoubtedly trying to legislate to prevent such incidents as much as
possible. Each government that went into effect tried and tested its
own counter-terrorism laws. The 2002 Prevention of Terrorism Act
(POTA) was one such act introduced by the National Democratic
Alliance (NDA) government and reportedly the result of the
September 11th attack on the World Trade Center and the one that
followed it in India Parliament from 2001 was. Attack in New Delhi.
So this article tries to answer questions like: What was the act? And
why was it canceled?

3. What is terrorism?
• The term "terrorism" comes from the French word terrorism, which is based on
the Latin verb terrere (trembling). It dates back to 1795 when it was used to
describe the actions of the Jacobin Club during his reign in post-revolutionary
France, known as the "Reign of Terror". Rumor has it that the Jacobins coined the
term "terrorists" to refer to themselves. Terrorism refers to a strategy of using
violence, social threats, or coordinated attacks to create fear, cause disruption, and
ultimately meet established political, religious, or ideological requirements.
• In its definition of "terrorism" from 2002, the European Union included the aim of
"destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or
social structures of a country". Terrorism is defined in the United States by the
Code of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as: "the unlawful use of force and
violence against any person or property to intimidate or coerce any government,
civilian population, or part thereof, for political or social purposes FBI further
describes terrorism as national or international, depending on the origin, basis and
goals of the terrorists.

4. Historical overview
• The 1985 Law to Prevent Terrorist and Disruptive Activities, amended in 1987, was
the first law against terrorist activities in the country. It was imposed between
1985 and 1995 under the pretext of the Punjab Uprising and applied across India.
This act necessarily gave a thorough definition of "terrorism". However, in 1995 it
was repealed due to the law's growing unpopularity due to its widespread abuse.
It was found that around 75,000 people were detained under TADA across India
and that those 73,000 cases later had to be withdrawn due to a lack of evidence.
• After the repeal of the TADA, the Union Cabinet passed the Ordinance on the
Prevention of Terrorism or POTO in 2001. This law is a response to "an increase in
terrorist activity, exacerbation of terrorism, cross-border terrorism and insurgent"
groups in different parts of the country. This ordinance gave law enforcement
agencies far-reaching powers to investigate, detain and prosecute a wide variety of
terrorist activities. Inevitably, POTO has targeted individuals who are likely to have
instigated, assisted, encouraged, harbored, concealed or benefited from the
proceeds of terrorism Ordinance became the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) at
a joint meeting at the Prime Minister's request in March 2002.
• In order to discuss why the POTA was repealed, it is important to first understand
what the law was and how it was used or abused during its period of application.

5. • The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002
• According to Manmohan Singh's government,
POTA was "the government's best medicine
for combating terrorist activity". It was the
NDA's first major political decision since it
took office in 2001. It was passed in Lok Sabha
after a 10-hour debate with 425 votes in favor
and 296 against, although it was rejected in
the Upper Room of the House (Rajya Sabha). .

6. The main features of the legal acts
were:
1. The law defines "terrorist" and contains investigation and
sanction clauses. While the law contains laws that allow
executives to investigate and arrest suspects, it also
includes certain safeguards to ensure confidentiality.
2. Under this law, a suspect could be detained for up to 180
days without filing a charge in court. In addition, an
essential aspect of this law is preventive detention, which
is the detention of a person to prevent them from
committing other crimes or to maintain public order.
3. Under the General Law of the Code of Criminal Procedure
of 1973, Article 161, confessions to the police are not
considered admissible evidence in court. However,
according to POTA, such confessions to the police can be
used as evidence against the suspect.

7. 4. Any decision on the suspect's bail request or a
decision by the POTA Special Court may be appealed
to the High Court of the specified jurisdiction.
5. The law also provided for the establishment of state
and central review committees.
6. The POTA's provisions also stipulated that confessions
must be recorded within 48 hours before a judge who
would send the accused for a medical examination in
the event of a torture complaint. In addition, a legal
representative of the defendant may be present for
part of the interview.
7. In addition, the police can be prosecuted for abuse of
power. The POTA also provided that victims outside of
custody could also be compensated.

8. Conclusion
• Counter-terrorism measures in India have met with backlash due to
their vagueness and the fact that they frequently violate the human
rights of a convicted or suspect. There have been hundreds of
arrests under these laws, and even after the law in question has
been repealed, they remain in jail without trial. The Human Rights
Council, in its review of India's counter-terrorism laws, must give
clear instructions to the Indian government to remove its
discriminatory and draconian laws and their equally draconian
enforcement in the country if it is to be considered among nations
and civilized countries. India claims to be the largest democracy in
the world, and therefore such laws that deny the enjoyment of
human rights to every individual conform to the existing character
of a democratic country.