In 2011, a Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra had acquitted one Arup Bhuyan, and soon after, one Indra Das, for offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).
The top court had held that the TADA court had relied on an alleged confession statement, and mere membership of a banned organisation under the Act could not be ground for conviction.
Pertinently, the Bench, relying on its decision in State of Kerala v. Raneef as well the American Bill of Rights and some US Supreme Court rulings, had observed in the context of the TADA Act that,
“In our opinion, Section 3(5) cannot be read literally otherwise it will violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution…Hence, mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence.“
In 2014, the Supreme Court had observed that the larger issue in three cases should be heard by a larger bench. This led to the present reference.
Source: Barandbench
