SIMRANJIT SINGH MANN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a member of the Indian Police Service. He is now a Member of Parliament. He questions the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.

(2.) What is the petitioner's case? He alleges that "its draconian provisions infringe the basic rights of people of India i.e. right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. . . . . . ." Under Section 3(5), a "person who is a member of a terrorist organization . . . . . can be arrested and punished . . . . with life imprisonment and a fine up to Rs. ten lacs." Section 49(5) of the Act provides that the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C. are not available for those "to whom the Act applies." Section 49(7) denies bail to person arrested under the provisions of the Act unless "the Special Judge comes to the conclusion that the accused has not committed the crime. . . . . ." The "benevolent provisions of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. that a person can be granted bail if a challan is not presented within 60 days/90 days has also been denied to persons accused under the Act and the period has been extended to 180 days under Section 49(2) of the Act." Under Section 32, a confession made before the police has been made admissible. It "amounts to giving absolute power in the hands of the police and on the sole testimony of the police witness a person can be convicted under the Act where the punishments are very severe. . . . . . . . ."

(3.) The petitioner cites an instance. He refers to the case of Devinder Pal Singh who has been sentenced to death in a case under TADA. The Apex Court has, "upheld the death sentence even though there is no corroborative evidence." This penalty has been awarded "on the basis of confessional statement alleged to have been made before the police." The provision in the Act "amounts to giving absolute power to the police and enables the police officer to sign anybody's death warrant."