K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 3015-3016/2005. The appellants in these two a Prevention of Terrorism (Second) Ordinance, 2001 ppeals are the kith and kin of some persons killed in the Godhra Train Burning incident and in the akshardham Temple attack. They2 have challenged the judgment dated 13. 4. 2005 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA nos. 1103 and 1105/2005 filed by them. For convenience, the appellants in these two appeals will be referred to as the `relatives of victims'.

( 2 ) THE appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1113/2005, 1498-1500/2005, 359/2006, 734/2007, 735/2007 and 736/2007 are persons who have been charged in respect of offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, in terrorism related cases. In these appeals, they have also challenged the said judgment dated 13. 4. 2005 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA nos. 1103 and 1105 of 2005, and other judgments of the said High court and the judgment of the Bombay High Court which follow the said decision. The appellants in these appeals will be referred to as `pota accused'.

( 3 ) THESE appeals involve questions relating to the constitutional validity as also the interpretation of section 2 (3)and (5) of Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act 2004. While the relatives of victims are aggrieved by the rejection of their challenge to section 2 (3) and (5) of the said Act, the POTA accused are aggrieved by the direction to read section 2 (3)subject to section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. To appreciate the rival contentions, the reasons that led to enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and its repeal, require to be noted.

( 4 ) TO meet the challenge of terrorists indulging in wanton killings, arson, looting, and other heinous crimes in various parts of India, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)Act (hereinafter referred to as `tada') was enacted by the parliament in the year 1985. There was widespread criticism that TADA contained some draconian provisions.

( 5 ) THE constitutional validity of TADA was challenged before this Court in KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB - (1994)3 SCC 569. It was contended before this Court that many of the stringent provisions of TADA were likely to be abused by the police. In particular, it was submitted that the provisions relating to confession made to the police may lead to illegal extraction of confessions by the police; and that the provision relating to grant of bail were violative of human rights and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. While upholding the constitutional validity of TADA, this Court observed that it was necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Act were not misused by the security agencies/police. Certain guidelines were set out to ensure that confessions obtained in pre-indictment interrogation by the police will be in conformity with principles of fundamental fairness. This Court also indicated that the Central government should take note of those guidelines by incorporating them in TADA and the rules framed thereunder by appropriate amendments. This Court also held that in order to prevent the misuse of the provisions of TADA, there must be some Screening or Review Committees. In the lead judgment, pandian, J. held (para 265) :

"in order to ensure higher level of scrutiny and applicability of TADA Act, there must be a screening Committee or a review Committee constituted by the Central Government consisting of the Home Secretary, Law Secretary and other secretaries concerned of the various Departments to review all the TADA cases instituted by the Central Government as well as to have a quarterly administrative review, reviewing the States' action in the application of the TADA provisions in the respective States, and the incidental questions arising in relation thereto. Similarly, there must be a Screening or review Committee at the State level constituted by the respective States consisting of