Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:06:14.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Silent Erosion: Anti-Terror Laws and Shifting Contours of Jurisprudence in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Ujjwal Kumar Singh*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Delhi

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper unravels the diverse strands in the manifestations of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA, 2002), focusing not only on law's words, i.e. the rules, principles and procedures, and its interpretations in judgments, but also on its effects. Adopting the violence of jurisprudence approach, it eschews the dichotomy between law and violence, examining the ‘effects of legal force’, in particular, the ways in which law becomes an integral part of the organization of state violence. Through an examination of the unfolding of POTA and laws dealing with ‘organized crime’ and ‘unlawful activities’ (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, 2005), the trajectory of specific cases and judgments by Trial Courts, the High Courts and the Supreme Court, this paper shows how through an interlocking of the ordinary and extraordinary, anti-terror laws erode both the procedural and substantive aspects of the rule of law, become the terrain where permutations in alliance politics and configuration of power are played out, and assume an antagonistic notion of politics which seeks resolution through the elimination and externalization of difference. Extraordinary laws, it argues, are manifestations of a politics of negation. Processes that prolong the lives of such laws, and procedural interlocking and intermeshing that seek to give them permanence, are symptomatic of a deepening of the politics of negation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2006

References

Balagopal, K. (2000) ‘Law Commission’s View of Terrorism’, Economic and Political Weekly, 35(25), 17-23 June.Google Scholar
Banerjee, Sumanta (1991) ‘Colonial Laws - Continuity and Innovations’, in Desai, A. R. (ed.), Expanding Governmental Lawlessness and Organized Struggles. Bombay: Popular Books.Google Scholar
Baxi, Upendra (1982) Crisis of the Indian Legal System. Delhi: Vikas.Google Scholar
Bayley, D. H. (1962) Preventive Detention in India. Kolkata: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhya. Debates, Joint Sitting of the Houses of Parliament, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, 26 March 2002.Google Scholar
Hillyard, Paddy (1993) Suspect Community: People’s Experience of Terrorism Acts in Britain. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Law Commission of India (2000) 173rd Report on Prevention of Terrorism Bill, April.Google Scholar
MHA (2003) Report of the Committee on Reform of the Criminal Justice System, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, March.Google Scholar
PUDR (1993) Lawless Roads. Delhi: People’s Union for Democratic Rights.Google Scholar
PUDR (2003a) Trial of Errors: Critique of the POTA Court Judgement on the 13th December Case. Delhi: People’s Union for Democratic Rights.Google Scholar
PUDR (2003b) Terror by Proxy. Delhi: People’s Union for Democratic Rights.Google Scholar
SAHRDC (2001) Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance 2001: Government Decides to Play Judge and Jury. New Delhi: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre.Google Scholar
Shourie, Arun (2002) Courts and Their Judgements: Premises, Prerequisites, Consequences. New Delhi.Google Scholar
Singh, Ujjwal Kumar (2004a) ‘State and the Emerging Interlocking Legal Systems in India: Permanence of the Temporary’, Economic and Political Weekly, 39(2), 10-16 January.Google Scholar
Singh, Ujjwal Kumar (2004b) ‘POTA and Federalism’, Economic and Political Weekly, 39(18), 1-7 May.Google Scholar
Tabb, William K. (2003) ‘After Neoliberalism?’, Analytical Monthly Review, June.Google Scholar