COLIN GONSALVES ALVES

TThe intervention of the Chief Justice’s Court in the recent case of the arrests of prominent social activists and lawyers should mark a turning point in the way in which the judiciary has looked at “terrorist” cases. For too long the apex court has been deferential to the State, and it only needed the use of the word “terrorism” for the former to uphold the constitutional validity of security legislation. While dealing with the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) the Supreme Court upheld its constitutional validity despite glaring provisions allowing the killing of persons on the basis of “suspicion”. Subsequently, 300 persons every year for decades were killed in fake encounters in Manipur alone until the Supreme Court intervened in the Extra Judicial Execution Victim Family Association (EEVFAM) case holding that the security forces had no immunity in cases of fake encounters. That intervention had a miraculous result and brought down the killings to three a year. The Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) and The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) were similarly upheld as constitutionally valid despite an alarming provision allowing for confessions to a police officer to be treated as legally valid evidence. It took widespread protests for Parliament to repeal the statute but not before hundreds were jailed in false cases akin to the emergency arrests. The equally repressive Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is today the main instrument of state terror.