NEWSLINKS US EDITION SOUTH ASIA COLUMNISTS DIARY SPECIALS INTERVIEWS CAPITAL BUZZ REDIFF POLL DEAR REDIFF THE STATES ELECTIONS ARCHIVES SEARCH REDIFF
After a voice vote on the Congress-sponsored statutory resolution disapproving the anti-terror bill, the opposition pressed for a division (voting) in which the resolution was adopted with 98 votes in favour and 87 against. One member abstained.
Subsequently, the bill to ratify the Prevention of Terrorism (Second) Ordinance, 2002, already approved by the Lok Sabha, was also put to vote and in a division, the motion was rejected by the Upper House.
As many as 113 members voted against the bill while 98 supported it.
BJP allies, the three-member National Conference and one-member Lok Tantrik Congress stayed away from the House, to the shock of the treasury benches after having extended support to the bill.
"This was the only surprise," Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pramod Mahajan said after the voting and declared that the government was going ahead with its plans for convening a joint session on March 26.
Earlier, replying to an acrimonious debate, Union Home Minister L K Advani stoutly defended POTO saying it was essential because of a sea change in the security scenario in the country in the face of cross border terrorism.
Instead of terrorists languishing in jails, it would help in prosecuting and convicting them, he said asserting that government had incorporated all possible safeguards to prevent its misuse unlike the National Security Act (NSA).
For preventive detentions, the provisions under POTO were more specific, he said and pointed out that wireless intercepts have been made admissible as evidence to ensure conviction.
Going by the suggestions given by the Supreme Court on the defunct Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act (TADA), he said that of the 26 people booked under POTO in Jammu and Kashmir, ten had been released on bail, which proved that the proposed law was not as harsh as was being made out to be by the opposition.
Admitting that POTO or any law cannot be a panacea for terrorism, Advani said, "Our objective is to fight terrorism and especially state-sponsored cross-border terrorism, which is even more dangerous than an open war."
More reports on the POTO controversy
Tell us what you think of this report
