VIJAY ANANT VASHIRDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in MCOC Special Case No.6 of 2009. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that directions be issued to the State of Maharashtra to establish a Review Committee on the lines of directions given by the Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 SCC(Cri) 899 and as incorporated in POTA (Amendment) Act, 2003 (since repealed), so as to screen the abuse and misuse of the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 ("for short, "MCOCA"), that all pending cases and newly registered cases be referred to a Review Committee and that it may be declared that the provisions of MCOCA are not attracted to the petitioner's case.

(2.) It is necessary to state certain facts for better appreciation of the rival submissions. The Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, "TADA") was enacted to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities. In Kartar Singh, constitutional validity of TADA was challenged. Section 15 of TADA which made confession made by a person before a police officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of Police admissible in evidence came under heavy attack. The Supreme Court agreed that it would be dangerous to make a statement given to a police officer admissible. The Supreme Court held that having regard to the legal competence of the legislature to make the law prescribing a different mode of proof, the meaningful purpose and object of the legislation, the gravity of terrorism unleashed by the terrorists endangering the sovereignty and integrity of the country and the normal life of the citizens, section 15 cannot be said to be suffering from the vice of unconstitutionality. However, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines so as to ensure that confession obtained in the pre-indictment interrogation is not tainted with any vice, but is in strict conformity with wellrecognized and accepted aesthetic principles and fundamental fairness. The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to take note of the guidelines and incorporate them by appropriate amendments in TADA. In order to ensure higher level of scrutiny and applicability of TADA, the Supreme Court expressed that there must be Review Committee constituted by the Central Government. It is necessary to quote paragraph 265 of the judgment.

(3.) In Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors., 1996 2 SCC 616, in a public interest litigation, certain directions were sought in respect of under-trial prisoners charged with offences under TADA. The Supreme Court, not being entirely satisfied with the functioning of the Review Committee expressed that a more independent and objective scrutiny of the cases by a Committee headed by a retired Judge is obviously necessary. We shall advert to this case a little later.