Holding that it was not the Centre alone, but states also have the power to enact laws to tackle insurgency, the Supreme Court upheld the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act.
A bench of Justices R V Raveendran and Mukundakam Sharma dismissed a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of certain provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act vis-a-vis Section 2(1)(e) empowering the authorities to act against those promoting insurgency.
Intepreting the term 'insurgency', the apex court said, "It is clear that anything that affects public peace or tranquility within the state or the province would also affect public order and the state legislature is empowered to enact laws aimed at containing or preventing acts which tends to actually affect public order."
It was the argument of the accused Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh that the power to curb insurgency/terrorism was vested only with the central government under Article 245 and states had no powers to make enactments for curbing the menace.
"We are of the considered view that the legislation (MCOCA) only deals with 'insurgency' indirectly only to bolster the definition of organised crime.
"Therefore, we are of the view that it is within the legislative competence of the state of Maharashtra to enact such a provision under the Constitution," the bench said in a judgment.
Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, appearing for Sheikh, had contended it was the Centre only which could bring a legislation covering 'insurgency' as it fell within the ambit of the entry one of the union list.
He also contended the provision of MCOCA covering the act of 'insurgency' was inconsistent and has become void after the
enactment of the Unlawful (Prevention) Activities (UAPA) Act in 2004 which exhaustively deals with the offence of terrorism, which included insurgency.
