An organisation is banned because of its known ideologies and actions that are detrimental to the interests of the State. An organisation is made up of members who subscribe to these ideologies. It is not necessary that one should necessarily be involved in the activities . They are subscribed to the ideologies. I think that’s more than sufficient to term them as criminals. If the Court’s observation is to be taken literally, then being a member of SS or Nazi Youth is no crime; -Of Al Qaeda is no crime. -Of Jihadis no crime. Pray tell me what is the meaning of collective responsibility?
Members of banned organizations cannot be treated as criminals by police till they indulge in or incite violence, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday. The apex court’s Friday ruling is part of a judgment acquitting Arup Bhuyan, convicted by a Guwahati court under the now lapsed anti-terror law Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.
Bhuyan was a suspected member of the outlawed secessionist outfit United Liberation Front of Assam ( Ulfa) which figures at the top of the home ministry`s list of banned organizations. “Mere membership of a banned organization will not make a person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence,” a Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra said. The order can have a India (SIMI), CPI(M-L) and allied formations, militant groups active in north-eastern states, Khalistan Commando Force, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, International Sikh Youth Federation, Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen and Al Badr. bearing on the plans of outlawed outfits which include terror and insurgent groups.
The list of 32 banned organizations on the website of ministry of home affairs includes al-Qaida, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Students` Islamic Movement of The January 3 judgment had said, “Mere membership of a banned organization will not incriminate a person unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.” The trial court had convicted Bhuyan based on his confession to police, admissible as evidence under TADA. Bhuyan had appealed in Supreme Court. Allowing his petition, the court said his conviction was based on “a very weak kind of evidence” and could not be sustained in the absence of corroborative material. On the confessions, Justices Katju and Misra expressed strong views. “As is well known, the widespread and rampant practice in the police in India is to use third-degree methods for extracting confessions from the alleged accused. Hence, the courts have to be cautious in accepting confessions made to the police by the alleged accused,” the Bench said.
On torture /third Degree methods–
True.
What is the alternative?
Do you request the accused ?
There are instances where when you know a crime has been committed, the accused declares in News Channels that the charges are baseless and a Cabinet minister who is a part of the Government that should try him states the information that forms the basis for prosecution is wrong and questions the integrity of the Authority. of the organisation.
Please suggest a practical solution instead making moralistic statements.
Just being member of banned outfit not a crime: Supreme Court – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Just-being-member-of-banned-outfit-not-a-crime-Supreme-Court/articleshow/7428601.cms#ixzz1D3EY0bWK