(Indian Express) Comparison of Terrorist Laws

by Wonder Boy · Published May 1, 2015 · Updated April 30, 2015

29th April 2015

Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime (GCTOC) Bill, 2015 sent for the President’s assent.

Two similar acts : Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) — that are already in force.

Difference between theses acts compared as in table below :

	GCTOC	MCOCA	UAPA
1. Full form	Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime	Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act	Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
2. Where the law applies	All ofthe state ofGujarat	All ofMaharashtra and Delhi	Extends to the whole ofIndia
3. Time to file chargesheet	Up to 180 days	Up to 180 days	Up to 180 days
4. Definition of Terrorist Act	An act “committed with the intention to disturb law and order or public order or threaten the unity, integrity and security of the State or to strike terror in the minds of the people or any section of the people by doing an act using bombs, dynamite or any other explosive substance or inflammable material or firearms or other lethal weapons or poison or noxious gases or other chemicals or any other substance (whether biological or otherwise) hazardous in nature in such a manner so as to cause or likely to cause death or injury to any public functionary or any person or loss due to damage or destruction of property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the State Government to do or abstain from doing any act.”	Is used in terror-related offences, but does not expressly define a ‘terrorist act’. Defines “organised crime” as continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of one, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person promoting insurgency.	Similar to GCTOC
5. Presumption of guilt	Court to draw adverse inference if arms or explosives recovered from the accused or fingerprints of the accused found at the site of the incident, unless proven otherwise.	Similar to GCTOC	Similar to GCTOC
6. Provisions for Bail	Only after public prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose the bail application	Similar to GCTOC	Only after public prosecutor has been heard. Special provision that foreigners being tried for criminal acts under this Act will not be entitled to bail unless court is satisfied that there are grounds to believe accused is not guilty.
7. Confessions to the Police	Admissible as evidence	Admissible as evidence	No such thing.
8. Special Courts	YES	YES	YES
9. Interception of communication	Evidence collected through interception of wire, electronic or oral communication admissible in court. Requires accused to be furnished with copy of order authorising interception at least 10 days before trial. But the trial judge may waive this “if he comes to the conclusion that it was not possible to furnish the... information ten days before the trial...”	Same provision, but permission process more stringent.	Same as GCTOC.