Supreme Court

11.03.1994

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab

MANU/SC/1597/1994

Terrorist laws cannot curtail or erode a person of the fundamental rights

Terrorism, and the outpouring of solidarity in the aftermath, may have a lay understanding today, but an appreciation of laws that enable a response is perhaps more of a challenge. After all, what response and how much of a response relays the degree of unshackling from a relative civility, and may come to define the people that allow it. It was perhaps in introspection that Kartar Singh’s case wondered whether the hunt for anti-terrorist processes did not create a passive terror of its own. Whereas the Court delved into a deep discussion on legislative vires to draft anti-terrorism laws and what terrorism itself might mean, in the littler discussion on mens rea, particularly when one may be accused of abetting, it injected not intention, but awareness of assisting terrorists. It prescribed requirements for confessions, even a “free atmosphere”, obtained before indictment, to comply with fundamental fairness; but was mindful too that a deviation from common criminal jurisprudence could not itself lead to unconstitutionality: the recording of confessional statement before Executive and Special Executive Magistrates, otherwise not allowed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, for instance.

Relevant

The State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar MANU/SC/0033/1952
Ram Manohar Lohia (Dr.) v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0054/1965
Nathulal v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0384/1965

Tags : Terrorism confession mens rea abetment

Share :