VERDICT MAKES NONSENSE OF LAW

A recent ruling of the Supreme Court that mere membership of a banned outfit will not attract criminality, defies logic and should be challenged by the Central Government. Organisations are proscribed by Governments because the activities of their members cause public disorder and are a threat to national integrity and sovereignty. Thus, if the outfit is banned, its membership too is illegal. But according to a verdict delivered by an apex court bench comprising Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra, it is all right for one to be a member of a banned organisation as long as he does not indulge in violence. If this be the case, what is the purpose in proscribing an outfit? It should be sufficient for law enforcement agencies to just track individuals who are involved in terrorist activities while allowing dubious organisations to legally survive. Also, it is difficult to comprehend why someone who believes in non-violent means should be a member of a militant group that seeks to disrupt the Indian state through armed conflict. Since the judgement is in direct conflict with the provisions of various Acts that have been applied to contain terrorist activities in the country, it is bound to hamper the efforts of agencies to check the menace.

The verdict was delivered while acquitting an alleged member of the banned United Liberation Front of Assam, who was charged under the now lapsed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. Section 3(5) of the Act specifically provides punishment for being a member of a banned organisation. It may be argued that the provision irrelevant since the Act is no longer applicable but then again, even the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, which is still in force, does not give legal sanction for membership to banned outfits.

Curiously, the matter of "mere membership" was not even the issue before the Supreme Court. In fact, the alleged ULFA member claimed that he had no links with the outfit but was forced to confess before the Superintendent of Police. Such confessions are inadmissible in court under Section 25 of the Evidence Act all though they were allowed under Section 15 of the TADA, as the Judges rightly pointed, but then they went a step further and added that even if one were a member, that membership in it self would not be criminal. They distinguished between "active" and "passive" membership — something that the laws of the land do not differentiate. This is a dangerous exercise, because how does one define a passive member?

If one goes by the apex court's ruling, a member who provides mere logistical support to his banned outfit that indulges in violence cannot be booked because he is "passive" since he has neither indulged in violence nor incited it. Similarly, the fund raiser of a banned outfit will also be considered innocent although the money that he collects eventually goes into fuelling discontent and rebellion against the state. If 'mere' members of a banned group are innocent, what should be said of all those who are not technically members of a banned group but nonetheless actively participate in its activities, thanks to the vast networks that of these organisations that entrenched in our civil society here and abroad? Since they do not walk around brandishing weapons or chanting anti-India slogans, they are obviously not guilty, although their activities do weaken state.