POTA COURTS

For two recent stories on Mohammed Afroze, an admitted member of al-Qaeda who was before a Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) court in Mumbai last week, go here and here. The second story is very weird:

Yesterday, the POTA court asked Solkar to submit draft charges against Afroze, which should have been done by public prosecutor, Ujwal Nikam, who was absent.

Moments later, Solkar came back in the role of a defence lawyer. He told the court that he would file a discharge application on behalf of Afroze and his brother, co-accused in the case.

(No idea how common it is in India to ask the defense to submit the charges if the prosecution doesn't show up. Doesn't seem like a great idea to me, though!)

Note also this story about the Indian Supreme Court's rejection of a POTA prosecution of Tamil Nadu politician Vaiko and this story about a POTA court responding to government requests to release accused Kashmiri separatist Ghulam Moinuddin Bhat.

Two things are likely to strike American readers about these stories. First, even in terrorism cases, Indian courts are willing to grant bail, release prisoners, and otherwise do their jobs in a relatively normal fashion. Second, the special POTA courts are willing to respond to arguments rooted in politics -- in Bhat's case, the politics of negotiating with separatist groups.

For more on POTA, see my posts from last December here, here and here.