Jammu and Kashmir National Conference on Wednesday opposed the Unlawful Activities Prevention Amendment Bill 2019, saying the proposed amendment is in gross conflict with the fundamental right of life and personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Member Parliament Hasnain Masoodi while speaking in theParliament said, “The bill provides for investigation of offence under the Actby NIA to be conducted by an officer of the rank of Inspector. It
also permits seizure/ attachment of property believed to beconnected with terrorism. The Amendment gives power to the Central Governmentto designate a person as terrorist and include such person in Fourth Scheduleof the Act. Till now only an organisation could be designated as terroristorganisation.”
Participating in the debate, Hasnain Masoodi said that theParliament was under a Constitutional obligation to enact a law that is inconsonance with the spirit and mandate of the Constitution. “The proposedamendment was in gross conflict with the fundamental right of life and personalliberty guaranteed under the Constitution,” he said.
He insisted that the law to be in tune with theConstitutional mandate must be just, fair and reasonable and that the Amendmentdidn’t have any of these attributes. He maintained that power to declare aperson as terrorist and bring on Fourth Schedule was open ended and amenable tomisuse; that the power given was wide, unbridled, unguided and therefore withlikelihood of arbitrarily used.
Maintaining that the Act didn’t displace the presumption ofinnocence, Masoodi said that the proposed Amendment envisaged pre trial penalconsequences and therefore left room for punishment before trial.
Masoodi also took exception to entrustment of investigationto an Inspector when NIA investigated the matter as against DySP provided underthe Act. “As investigation involved harsh steps like seizure and attachment ofthe property on the suspicion of being connected with terrorism, it was part ofthe constitutional obligation to have investigation conducted in an objectiveand dispassionate manner and to ensure fair investigation it was thoughtnecessary to have it done by a senior officer, the requirement now done awaywith.
The Amendment, it was argued was bound to affect the rightto life and liberty as onus was put on the suspect to prove that whatever wasalleged against the suspect to designate as terrorist was without substance.Though in a criminal case onus is always on the prosecution and would nevershift to a suspect,” he implored.