Cong rejects NDA amendments on POTO

NEW DELHI, Dec 7 (UNI) The Congress today rejected the amendments approved by the cabinet on the Prevention Of Terrorism Ordinance as "marginal and cosmetic, intended only to save the face of the NDA partners." "We are of the considered view that the amendments do not deserve any consideration from our side," Congress spokesman S Jaipal Reddy said, adding his party would continue to oppose the POTO.

Mr Reddy told mediapersons here that though a section relating to the media in the POTO had been removed, the section 314, which was unfair to the presspersons, had been retained.

This meant that journalists could still be brought under the purview of the poto and compelled to disclose their sources.

The media is opposing this clause because of genuine democratic concern, he added.

Mr Reddy said his party would oppose a bill on POTO in Parliament both on procedural ground and through amendments.

"We will show through discussion and amendments the draconian features of the POTO".

According to Mr Reddy, the bill did not contain the specific definition of terrorism and terrorists.

The definition was so "vague and sweeping" that anybody could be brought within its "dragnet".

The provision treating the confession made to a police officer as a piece of evidence could be "abused terribly".

Pointing out that it was mainly police which would enforce the POTO as it could not be administered at the level of ministers and bureaucrats, Mr Reddy said any person detained under the legislation would remain in jail up to one year without trial or bail.

All these features were very much there in the POTO, he said.

Describing the amendments as a mere "sop, intended to defruad and mislead the people," the Congress spokesman said the opposition was firm and united on the issue.

Asked whether Congress-ruled states would not be takig recourse to the POTO, Mr Reddy said his partys first concern was to get the bill defeated in parliament as it was a "terrible piece of legislation".

He argued that there were no dearth of laws to deal with terrorism and cited the prevention of unlawful actiovity act 1967 and many state governments own border areas acts in this respect.

The BJP was trying to give an impression that the government would combat terrorism through law, while the fact was that the menace could not be fought through law.