The Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed two bills providing for establishment of a National Investigating Agency and deterrent provisions to fight terror with the govt asserting that it has tried to balance the requirements of law, prosecution and investigating agency.
The House passed the National Investigating Agency Bill, 2008 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2008 by a voice vote after rejecting a CPI(M) member’s amendment, a day after it was introduced against the backdrop of the terror attacks in Mumbai.
Replying to the day-long debate on the two bills, which had by and large received the support of the entire house, Home Minister P Chidambaram sought to allay apprehensions of misuse of the new tough measures to deal with terrorism saying adequate safeguards have been incorporated.
“What we have done is to do more than adequate balance of requirements of investigating and prosecuting agency and the demands of human rights and the people of India for strong anti-terror laws,” he said piloting the bills.
He said the NIA would investigate offences under eight laws listed in its schedule and any acts that strike terror among people.
The Minister emphasised that the UAPA was very unlike POTA and that new measures should not not be seen from the “communal prism”.
Seeking passage of the twin measures unanimously, he said “let us demonstrate our unity of purpose by passing these bills unanimously.”
Dealing with some of the provisions of the bill, he said notwithstanding the constitution of the NIA it would still respect the state government’s right to investigate cases and would even associate them in such investigation.
In the UAPA bill, he said even while making tough provisions the Courts have been given the powers to decide on the prosection’s case in the matter of bail and presumption of guilt on the accused in some specific cases.
In the NIA, the Minister said the agency to be set up by the Centre would respect the state governments power to investigate terrorist cases.
When the state government sends the information to the Central government, the Centre within 15 days would decide, having regard to the gravity of the offence, whether it is fit to be taken up by the NIA.
“In many cases, I expect the NIA to ask the state governments to associate themselves,” he said adding the NIA would investigate offences under eight laws, including the Atomic Energy Act and The Anti-Hijacking Act.
Judges to be appointed to the Special Courts under NIA would be done in consultation with the Chief Justice of High Courts and cases would be heard on day-to-day basis.
Appeals would lie with the division bench of the High Court and should be disposed off in three months under the NIA, he said.
Underlining differences between the provisions of the UAPA and those of the now now scrapped-POTA, Chidambaram said enhanced duration of detention of an accused without bail was needed in terrorist cases as it may not not be possible to completion investigation within 90 days.
Even the maximum period of detention was “up to” 180 days and an accused could be released on bail earlier depending on the courts which have powers to decide.
He said for extending the detention period, the court has to be convinced that the investigation is making progress.
“It is an exceptional situation,” he added.
Chidambaram said supposing there was no no progress then the courts could release him.
POTA gave an extraordinary weightage to the word of the public prosecutor.
“The court can deal with the bail application but not not without giving an opportunity to the prosecution,” he said referring to the provision in the UAPA.
On the presumption of offence, a rebuttable provision has been introduced in the UAPA that the court could make such an inference under certain circumstances.
Under the bill, if finger prints, blood stain, DNA and weapons of offence are recovered from the crime scene, it will be the first duty of the Court to presume the offence while it will be the second duty of the accused to provide contrary evidence.
Where there is definitive evidence suggesting involvement of the accused, the courts can presume he is guilty, he said adding in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi many of the accused escaped because of lack of such a provision.
This will apply to the Special Courts to be set up under the NIA, the Home Minister said, adding High Courts and the Supreme Court would not be bound by this.
Drawing a comparison with POTA, he said under that law, the Public Prosecutor had been given the overriding powers, which was not true in the present case.
There had been views, even among the UPA constituents, for and against that confession before a police officer should be made admissible and should bail should be denied.
Chidambaram said, “A fair balance of all views without compromising the ability of the agency to prosecute offences without disregard to the fundamental human rights has been taken and keeping in mind the valued rights.”
He said while an investigation can be done against anybody under the new law, prosecution can be initiated only after sanction by an appropriate authority of Central government.
“There is a pre-sanction filter,” he said while talking about provisions to safeguard rights of people.
A judge appointed to a special court under the NIA bill will have to complete the trial even if it requires extension of his or her service beyond super-annuation, the Home Minister said, pointing out that it was aimed at doing away with delays caused by change of judge.
He, however, said he could not specify the time-frame by which trial in a case could be completed as it depends on the court.
Seeking to allay fears about the new law or the NIA having clauses that could be misused, Chidambaram said these contain “no extraneous” provisions
