New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether mere membership of a banned organisation will make a person a “terrorist”, if he does not resort to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence.
A three-judge bench of Justices J.S. Khehar, V. Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra, decided to have a relook at the definition of a “terrorist” under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and anti-terror laws, after Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar informed that the 2011 judgment had wide ramifications and all the High Courts are following the same.
In 2011, the apex court had held that mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person a terrorist unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence.
The Supreme Court had set aside a judgement of the Designated Court, Assam at Guwahati convicting Arup Bhuyan under Section 3 (5) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for being a Member of Ulfa.
Centre objects to terror verdict
The court held mere advocacy or teaching the duty, necessity, or propriety of violence as a means of accomplishing political or industrial reform is not per se illegal. It will become illegal only if it incites to imminent lawless action.
The Centre filed a petition seeking to recall this judgement saying police could not wait for banned outfit members to carry out acts of terror. It said such a judgement defies logic as any member of a terrorist organisation could open an office anywhere and start recruiting people and police would not be able to do anything.
The government said authorities could not wait for each individual member to commit any criminal act and it was liable to take action against him since being a member of a banned organisation, he/she subscribed to the ideology of that group which believed in violence.
The Solicitor General told the court that the judgement is detrimental to the interests of the government and no action can be taken against a member of terrorist organisation.
If this judgement is allowed to remain, there is possibility of terrorism being spread. The bench posted the matter for hearing on days other than Mondays and Fridays.
