(RSF/IFEX) – As the Indian parliament examines the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), RSF has sent a letter to Federal Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani, in which the organisation expresses its concerns about the bill’s potential consequences for press freedom. “Sentencing a journalist to five years’ imprisonment because he is suspected of not transmitting information […]
(RSF/IFEX) – As the Indian parliament examines the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO), RSF has sent a letter to Federal Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani, in which the organisation expresses its concerns about the bill’s potential consequences for press freedom. “Sentencing a journalist to five years’ imprisonment because he is suspected of not transmitting information about a ‘terrorist’ to the authorities is contrary to India’s commitment to press freedom,” RSF Secretary-General Robert Ménard stated. The organisation asked the minister to delete Articles 3(8) and 14 of the POTO, which endanger journalists’ work. “We totally agree with the Indian human rights organisations that have questioned the legality and utility of such a law,” underlined Ménard.
According to information obtained by RSF, the government has presented the POTO to parliament, which has been sitting since 19 November 2001. Articles 3(8) and 14 of the “antiterrorist” bill specify that every person, particularly journalists, must transmit full information concerning “terrorist activities” to the authorities or risk imprisonment. The draft law includes provisions for detention without trial for thirty days and a maximum of five years’ imprisonment for violating the clauses. The two articles also allow the courts to sentence journalists to three years’ imprisonment if they do not reveal their sources about “terrorist activities”, and particularly the names of “terrorists” and their supporters that they have met or interviewed. According to the Asian organisation Human Rights Features, it is the police officer in charge of the investigation rather than a judge who will determine whether a journalist has failed to transmit the necessary information.
Several Indian journalists have already expressed their fear that the bill may lead to more self-censorship in the coverage of separatist movements. Some “sensitive” issues may therefore completely disappear from the media.
The definition of “terrorist activities” in the bill is very unclear and may encourage abuses by the security forces. Article 3 specifies that a “terrorist” is a person who “tries to threaten India’s unity, security or sovereignty”. In some Indian states, such as Kashmir, Assam or Manipur, the POTO will likely make journalists’ investigative work impossible. Reporters will be caught in the crossfire between separatists, designated as “terrorists” by the authorities, and the security forces.
The draft law also allows the government to monitor every type of communication, including e-mails and phone conversations, without any administrative checks.
Previously, in June 2000, RSF had urged Home Minister Advani to reconsider the consequences of two bills proposed by the government. The first proposed bill, a framework law on the Internet, provides for five years’ imprisonment for any person in charge of an “anti-Indian” website. The second bill, a law on terrorist activities, provides for the sentencing of journalists to up to one year in jail if they fail to give the police information about “terrorist activities” (see IFEX alert of 6 June 2000).
RSF, Human Rights Watch and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) recently launched a website (www.libertes-immuables.org) in which attacks on basic freedoms in countries engaged in the war against terrorism are compiled.
