The constitution of the review committee under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 is a one-time measure and the petitioners' cases had already been considered by the Committee. Therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to a mandamus directing the State to constitute a review committee to consider their cases.

ORDER :

1. There are 28 petitioners in these four Writ Petitions. The petitioners in two of the Writ Petitions (W.P. Nos. 38873 of 2005 and 5386 of 2006), challenge an order passed by the Review Committee constituted in terms of Section 60(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (in short ‘POTA Act’).

2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1377 of 2016 seeks a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for order dated 23.05.2016 on the file of the respondent herein and quash of the same as illegal and a direction to the respondent to constitute a review committee to review the case of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 36989 of 2016 seeks a mandamus directing the State to constitute a Review committee to consider whether there is a prima facie case for continuance of the matters pending before the POTA Special Court as against her.

Submissions of the Petitioner

4. The genesis of the impugned proceedings is an incident that took place on 23.11.2002 when, on information received from a police constable, a team of police officials headed by the Inspector of Police, Naxalite Special Duty Wing, Dharmapuri District conducted a survey in a Mango grove, at Salaijogipatti Village, Dharmapuri District.

5. They believed that the grove was owned by one Murugesan, and did not find anyone therein. Upon enquiry, they were given to understand that there had been a group of people who had been undergoing karate training but had left the place, on objections being raised by the villagers.

6. Investigation was continued and arrests made leading to the filing of Case in Special C.C. No. of 2003 before the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (Session Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases) at Poonamallee. The fundamental premise of the arrests is that the petitioners are members of the Radical Youth League (RYL) which constitutes a front of the Communist party of India (Marxist-Leninist) People’s War.

7. According to the petitioners, the cases as against them are to be tried in the regular Court, as there is no justification in law whatsoever for the matters to be tried by the POTA Court. Requirements under the POTA Act are stringent as the POTA is a special enactment. The Act was itself in force only for a period of 2 years, having been enacted specially to deal with a surge of insurgency at that point in time.

8. The preamble thereto states the enactment was brought about to make provisions for the prevention of, and for dealing with, terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. Though Section 1 (6) of POTA stipulates that it was to continue in force for a period of three years, it stood repealed in 2004 and there is thus no justification for continuance of matters under a dead enactment.

9. The sine qua non, for matters to be dealt with under POTA is the classification of the accused as a terrorist and the activity engaged by the accused, as an act of terrorism. In the present case, the conclusion that the petitioners are terrorists or that they had indulged in acts of terrorism, is incorrect both on facts and in law.

10. The conclusion in the impugned order to the effect that the petitioners are members of a banned organisation is based on Government Order bearing No. G.O.316 dated 19.07.2002 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is not binding upon the authorities in Tamil Nadu.

11. The Appendix to the POTA Act enumerates the list of organizations declared to be terrorist organizations, banned in the interests of sovereignty of the Country. The RYL does not find reference therein.

12. It is for this reason that the respondents seek to include RYL within the ambit of ‘Communist party of India (Marxist-Leninist)-People’s War, All its formations and front organizations’ which figures in S.N o. 24 of the schedule. There is nothing to indicate what a ‘front’ organization is. Such term is undefined and there is no evidence a