Mr. Aman Mishra

199 Pages·2017·1.67 MB·English

FINAL REPORT OF
MINOR RESEARCH PROJECT

“REVAMPING THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS OF
INDIA: NEED OF THE HOUR”

Principal Investigator
Mr. Aman Rameshwar Mishra
Assistant Professor
BVDU, New Law College, Pune

SUBMITTED TO
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE,
GANESHKHIND, PUNE-411007

August, 2017
ACKNOWLEGEMENT

“REVAMPING THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS OF INDIA: NEED OF THE
HOUR” is a non-doctrinal project, conducted to find out the actual implementation of the laws
made for the national security.
This Minor research project undertaken was indeed a difficult task but it was an endeavour
to find out different dimensions in which the national security laws are implemented by the
executive branch of the government. At such a juncture, it was necessary to rethink on this much
litigated right. Our interest in this area has promoted us to undertake this venture.
We are thankful to UGC for giving us this opportunity. We are also thankful Prof. Dr.
Mukund Sarda, Dean and Principal for giving his valuable advices and guiding us. Our heartfelt
gratitude to Dr. Ujwala Bendale for giving more insight about the subject. We are also thankful to
Dr. Jyoti Dharm, Archana Ubhe & Vaibhav Bhagat for assisting us by formatting and typing the
work.
We are grateful to the faculty of New Law College, Pune for their support and the library
staff for cooperating to fulfil this endeavour.
We are indebted to our families respectively for their support throughout the completion
of this project.

Prof. Aman R. Mishra
Principle Investigator

i
C
ONTENTS

Sr No. PARTICULARS Page No.
1. CHAPTER- I 1 -24
INTRODUCTION
2. CHAPTER- II 25-45
CLASH OF TERMINOLOGIES: DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS
AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS IN INDIA
3. CHAPTER- III 46-100
NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS IN INDIA
4. CHAPTER- IV 101-154
JUDICIAL RESPONOSE TO NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS IN INDIA
5. CHAPTER- V 155-178
CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY 179-191

ii
T C

ABLE OF ASES
SR. CASES
NO.
1. A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (AIR 1976 SC 1207)
2. A.K. Roy v. Union of India, [1982] AIR 710
3. Akshoy Kanal v.State of W.B., A.l.R. 1973 S.C. 300
4. Arun Ghosh v. State OF W.B., A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1228
5. Biram Chand v. State of U.P., A.I.R.1974S.C. 1161
6. Collector of Customs V. Nathella Sampathu Chetty, AIR 1962 SC 316
7. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374 (H.L.) 394
8. Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. State of Bombay, [1952] SCR 612, 626
9. G. Sadanandan v, State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1966 S.C.
10. Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. [1975] 3 SCR 946
11. Haradhan Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. [1975] 1 SCR 778
12. Jayanta Kumar Ghosh v. NIA, [2014] 1 GLT
13. Jibangshu Paul v NIA, [2013] (3) GLT 615 (Guwahati HC)
14. Kangujam Ravi Kumar Singh v. Union of India, MANU/WB/1088/2013 [The High Court
of Calcutta]
15. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [1994] 3 SCC 569
iii
16. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 (4) SCC 225
17. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. [1964] 1 SCR
18. Kishori Mohan v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1949
19. L.K. Das v. State of Bengal, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 753
20. Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 etc.
21. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] A.I.R. 597
22. Manu Bhusan, v. State of W.B., A.l.R. 1973 S.C. 295
23. Mintu Bhakta v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2132
24. Misrilal Jain v. District Magistrate, Kanpur, U.R. (S.C.) 1972
25. Misrilal v. State A.I.R. 1971 Pat. 134
26. Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab@ Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra, [Crim.
Appeal No.1899-1900 of 2011]
27. Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State of NCT of Delhi, [Crim. Appeal No.98-99 of 2009]
28. Morjain Hussain v. State through NIA, Hyderabad, [Special Sessions Case no.2 of 2013]
29. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 [2008]
30. Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India [1998] 2 SCC 109
31. Nalini and Others v State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT, Death Reference case
no 1 of 1998 (@ D.No. 1151 of 1998)
32. NIA v. Sh. Pradip Brahma, [Special NIA Case No. 5 of 2015]
33. NIA, Delhi v. Zia ul-Haque and Others, [Special Case No. 567/2010]
34. NIA, Hyderabad v. Asadullah Akhtar, [Special Sessions Case No.1 of 2015]
35. NIA, Hyderabad v. Devendra Gupta, 2013 SCC Online AP 136 (AP High Court)
36. NIA, Hyderabad v. Muhammad Sakir Hussaien, [Calender Case No.5 of 2014]
iv
37. Noor Chand v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2120
38. P. Mukherjee v. State of W.B. A.I.R. 1970 SC. 852
39. Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krisna Sinha & Anr. [1959] Supp. ISCR 806
40. People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr v. Union of India, [WP 389 of 2002] {(6/12/2003)
41. R v. Khwaja (2010) ONCA
42. R. C. ,Cooper v. Union of India [1973] 3 SCR 530
43. R. v. Farooqi and Others {2011, unreported}
44. R.K. Krishna Kumar v. State of Assam, AIR [1998] SC 530
45. Ratilal Bhanjl Mithani v. Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Anr. [1967] 3 SCR 926
46. Redaul Hussain Khan & Ors v. State of Assam & Ors. [2009] 3 GLT 855
47. Redaul Hussain Khan v. NIA, [CRL. APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2011] (High Court of Assam)
48. Redaul Hussain Khan v. State of Assam [2009] 3 GLT 855 (Guwahati HC)
49. Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [1969] 3 SCR 754
50. Sanjay Dutt v. State (II), (1994) 5 SCC 410
51. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam Assistant Passport Officer, Government of
India, New Delhi & Ors. [1967] 3 SCR 525
52. Shambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal [1973] 1 S.C.R. 856
53. Srilal Shaw v. State of Bengal A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 393
54. State of Karnataka through NIA v. Shoaib Ahmed Mirza and Others, [Special Case No.
52/2013]
55. State of Kerala through NIA, Ernakulam v. Savad, [Special Case No.1 of 2013]
56. State of Kerala through NIA, Ernakulum v.Abdol Majid Balouch, [Sessions Case No. 1 of
2016]
v
57. State of Kerala through NIA, Ernakulum v.Abdul Azeez & Others, [Sessions Case No. 2 of
2013]
58. State of Kerala through NIA, Ernakulum v. P.A. Shaduly, [Sessions Case no.1 of 2011](R.C.
No.3/2010/NIA)
59. State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah [2008] 13 SCC 5
60. State of Maharashtra, through NIA v. Ravi Dhiren & Others, [SESSIONS CASE NO.674
OF 2009 (NIA)]
61. State of Nagaland v. Ratan Singh [1966] 3 SCR 830
62. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCR 1
63. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain [1975] A.I.R. 865
64. State through NIA, Delhi v. Phojendra Hojai and Others, [Special Case No.1 of 2009]
65. State through NIA, Delhi v. Samir Mansuri and Others, [ Special Case No.2 of 2015]
66. State through NIA v. Dilbagh Singh & Others, CIA/NDPS/0000039/2014 [Sessions Case
No.16/7.4.2014]
67. State through NIA v. Malgonda Patil, [Special Case No. 1 of 2013]
68. State through NIA, Delhi v. Abdul Jaleel, [Sessions Case No. 1 of 2010] (01-10-2013)
69. State through NIA, Delhi v. Ekramul Ansari, [Sessions Case No. 9121/16]
70. State through NIA, Delhi v. Thadiyantevida Naseer, [Sessions Case No. 2 of 2010] (11-08-
2011)
71. State v. Abid Hussain, [RC No.09/2011/NIA/DLI]
72. State v. Mohd Afzal, 107 (2003) DLT 385
73. State v. Navjot Singh Sandhu [2005 (11) SCC 600]
74. Sudhir Kumar v. Police Commr. Calcutta. A.I.R 1970 S.C. 814
75. Sundara Roo v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1972S.C. 739
vi
76. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration [1980] 3 S CR 557
77. Suresh v. Canada {2002} 1 SCR 3, p-98
78. Sushanta v, State of West Bengal, A.l.R. 1969 SC. 1004
79. The State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police/ CBI/SIT v. Nalini & 35 others
decided on May 11, 1999.
80. Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [2010] 13 SCC 5

vii
CHAPTER- I

INTRODUCTION

1
REVAMPING THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS OF INDIA: NEED OF THE HOUR

1. INTRODUCTION
“Law is made not to be broken but to be obeyed and the respect for law is not retained by
demonstration of strength but by better appreciation of the reasons, better understanding of its
reality and implicit obedience. It goes without saying that the achievements of law in the past are
considerable, its protection in the present is imperative and its potential for the future is immense.
It is very unfortunate that on account of lack of respect, lack of understanding, lack of effectiveness,
lack of vision and lack of proper application in the present day affairs, law sometimes falls in
crisis.”1
-S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab

-Terrorism takes birth in the infamous galleries of injustice, grows in the unfortunate corridors of
violence, and flourishes in the apologetic lap of State brutality. It proposes to undermine the
security of the nation, challenge will of the Government and shake the faith of the people in the
establishment. It poses serious threats to the empire of security and security of empire2. Terrorism
in fact is a war in fantasy3 which is real only for the terrorists unless it is endorsed by the opponent
party. The operational conditions of fantasy war remain similar to the real war.
Terrorism’s most enduring feature remains its capacity to provoke anger, frustration, and fear.
Terrorist incidents are sudden, violent, and highly publicized4.

1 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [1994] 3 SCC 569 at Para-36, p-11.
2 See. KIM LANE SCHEPPELE, ‘THE EMPIRE OF SECURITY AND SECURITY OF EMPIRE’, 27 Temp. Int’L. &
Comp.L.J, 241.
3 See. FRANCO FERRACUTI, ‘A SOCIOPSYCHIATRIC INTERPRETATION OF TERRORISM’, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 643, International Terrorism, (Sep. 1982). p-129-140; As
Franco Ferracuti rightly puts:
“Terrorism, however, is a fantasy war, real only in the mind of the terrorist. Fantasy war, of course, is only partial
war, real for only one of the contestants who then adopts war values, norms, and behaviours against another,
generally larger group, trying to solve through strength a conflict based on legitimate or illegitimate grievances. A
fantasy war is neither accepted nor acknowledged by the other group who, in effect, tends to deny it. Fantasy war is
therefore an ongoing phenomenon, in a continuously unstable balance between two possible stabilizing processes:
real war or diffuse terror. Fantasy war becomes real only if acknowledged by the ‘enemy’ and becomes terrorism
when, unable to compel the enemy to accept a state of war, it must limit itself to harassing and destabilizing the enemy
through the utilization and diffusion of fear.”Ibid. at p- 137-138.
4 See. JEFFREY D. SIMON, ‘MISUNDERSTANDING TERRORISM’, Foreign Policy, No.67 (Summer, 1987), p-
104-120.
2