Abstract
This paper examines the evolution of the anti-terror legislation in India from Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (TADA), through Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000 (POTA) to Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This paper attends specifically to the jurisprudential tension between the promise of constitutional safeguards on the one hand, and the legal erosion of these rights inhering in these laws on the other. The paper seeks to understand how this tension is resolved, philosophically and jurisprudentially in addressing challenges to these laws in the Supreme Court. How, first, did the Supreme Court respond to the allegation that these laws suffered from the “the vice of unconstitutionality”. Second, having upheld the constitutional wholesomeness of these laws, how did different courts respond in actual cases being tried under these laws – which legally subverted established evidentiary rules? It is argued that the tension remains unresolved – despite professions to the contrary – and can be seen operating in the juridical field.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
