With Special Reference of Social Justice
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated. Some examples are organized criminals may use terror tactics to consolidate their position as well as to safeguard their interest. Also moreover , profits and funds derived from organized crimes can be diverted to terror outfits and terrorist activities. It’s a relationship that is mutually beneficial . Organized crimes cover within is told several crimes – drug smuggling, human trafficking arms trade, money laundering corruption etc. On one extreme many perceive terrorism to be the most violent, visible and heinous organized criminal activity. Domestic laws – The Unlawful Activities ( Prevention) Act 1967, the Union Government was passed the maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971, that was misused during the emergency declared under the then Prime Minister. The legacy of MISA was the National Security Act 1980. One of the most comprehensive security legislation, this law covered possibly all situations that posed a threat to security of nation plus social tensions. Communal disharmony an industrial unrest were dealt by NSA. The terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1985 was a legislation to be implemented for the whole

country. Commonly known as TADA this Act heralded a new wave of repression and excesses. It elucidated two distinct categories of offence – terrorism and disruptive activities. Through expected to be enforce only for two years, TADA was renewed again in 1987. through TADA 1987 lapsed by 1996, the state possessed the power to charge suspected persons retroactively for crimes perpetrated during the statute’s existence. The European Union includes in its 2002 definition of "terrorism" the aim of "destabilising or destroying the fundamental Political, Constitutional, Economic or Social Structures of a country.” Terrorism by nature is difficult to define. Acts of terrorism conjure emotional responses in the victims (those hurt by the violence and those affected by the fear) as well as in the practitioners.

“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

FBI Definition
Terrorism today poses the gravest threat to India’s sovereignty and integrity. It subverts the fundamental Rule of Law, denies rights to the citizens, endangers the social fabric, and threatens political and economic stability. This should not be allowed to happen. Such a determination can only be effectively expressed through comprehensive counter-terrorism legislation. The new law should enable the state to deny operating space to terrorists and their supporters, deter them from carrying out terrorist acts, ensure the basic rights of the people, and uphold the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution. In India, there has been no consistency in policies to deal with terrorism. Political consensus is missing even today. Public debates have often turned into slanging matches with political and communal overtones. Coalition politics has only made matters worse. A strong, responsible political leadership, thus, is paramount to the drafting and implementation of an effective, strong and permanent counter-terrorism law.
Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.

· Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
· Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.
· Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a Government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behaviour or politics.
· Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
· The line dividing preaching disaffection towards the Government and legitimate political activity in a democratic set-up cannot be neatly drawn. Where legitimate political criticism of the Government in power ends and disaffection beings, cannot be ascertained with precision. The demarcating line is thin and wavy.

Cyber terrorism in India is in limelight but for the wrong reasons. It seems the media and law enforcement in India are too much fascinated with the term “Cyber Terrorism” that they have not even done their homework properly. Recently, the anti-terrorism squad (ATS), investigating the “terror email” has decided not to book the accused for cyber terrorism as there was no intention to carry out any act of terror. Further, the news report also claims that according to an amendment in the Information Technology Act, which came into force in February this year, anyone indulging in cyber terrorism could be sentenced to life imprisonment. Prior to this, even the sending of threat emails was considered “hacking”. India Is Facing Serious Cyber Threats and cyber terrorism against India is one of them. Cyber terrorism in India and its preparedness are not unto the mark.

This is primarily because of the reason that India has no national security policy. National security policy of India is required so that issues like cyber crimes, cyber security threats, cyber attacks, cyber terrorism, cyber espionage, cyber warfare, etc can be effectively tackled. Another crucial lacuna in Indian national security policy is that cyber security policy of India is missing. Cyber terrorism is the use of Internet based attacks in terrorist activities, including acts of deliberate, large-scale disruption of computer networks, especially of personal computers attached to the Internet, by the means of tools such as computer viruses. Cyber terrorism is a controversial term. Some authors choose a very narrow definition, relating to deployments, by known terrorist organizations, of disruption attacks against information systems for the primary purpose of creating alarm and panic. By this narrow definition, it is difficult to identify any instances of cyber terrorism. Cyber terrorism can also be defined much more generally as any computer crime targeting computer networks without necessarily affecting real world infrastructure, property, or lives. There is much concern from government and media sources about potential damages that could be caused by cyber terrorism, and this has prompted official responses from government agencies.

Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab
where it observed that the country has been in the firm grip of spiraling terrorist violence and is caught between deadly pangs of disruptive activities. Apart from many skirmishes in various parts of the country, there were countless serious and horrendous events engulfing many cities with blood-bath, firing, looting, mad killing even without sparing women and children and reducing those areas into a graveyard, which brutal atrocities have rocked and shocked the whole nation Deplorably, determined youths lured by hard-core criminals and underground extremists and attracted by the ideology of terrorism are indulging in committing serious crimes against the humanity.

People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India
The constitutional validity of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 was discussed. The court said that the Parliament possesses power under Article 248 and entry 97 of list I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India to legislate the Act. Need for the Act is a matter of policy and the court cannot go into the same. Once legislation is passed, the Govt. has an obligation to exercise all available options to prevent terrorism within the bounds of the constitution. Mere possibility of abuse cannot be a ground for denying the vesting of powers or for declaring a statute unconstitutionally. Court upheld the constitutional validity of the various provisions of the Act.

Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
In a case where 9 person had died and several other injured on account of perpetrated acts The court said that such terrorist who have no respect for human life and people are killed due to there mindless killing. So any compassion to such person would frustrate the purpose of enactment of Tada and would amount to misplaced and unwarranted sympathy. Thus they should be given death sentence.

State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru
This was an appeal against convictions in view of attacks made on parliament. The matter was relating to admissibility and evidentiary value of evidence that retracted confessions cannot be acted upon by Court unless it is voluntary and can be corroborated by other evidence. Confession of accused can be used against co-accused only if there is sufficient evidence pointing to his guilt confession made under POTA cannot be used against co-accused as POTA operates independently of Indian Evidence Act and Indian Penal Code. Section 10 of Evidence Act has no applicability as confessionary statement has not been relied on for rendering conviction.

The prevention of terrorism Act 2002, also known as POTA remains the most controversial anti terror legislation till date. Several draconian clauses of the erstwhile TADA 1987 were retrained in the POTA. The law was hurriedly passed in the wake of the attack on the Indian Parliament. Through legislated amongst pandemonium in the political circles, the parliament attack as well as the International community in a reactionary mode- POTA was the answer in the Indian quarters. The Maharashtra Government announced on 12th February, 2009 that a special court would be set up for the sole surviving accused of the 26/11 Mumbai Terror attack.

Ajmal Kasab Case
Bombay high court has upheld the death sentence on 21 Feb 2011. Kasab has been sentenced to death for attacking Mumbai on November 26, 2008 along with nine other Pakistani terrorists and killing 166 people. He was found guilty of 80 offences, including waging war against the nation, which is punishable with the death penalty.

Kasab has been held guilty and given death penalty for five offences, including waging war against India, terrorist activities, murder and conspiracy and life sentence on five other counts. The judge sentenced Kasab on over 25 counts for lesser offences ranging from 7 years to one month and fined him about Rs 1.9 lakh.

Godhra Case: Death for 11 is years away
A special court on Tuesday awarded the death penalty to 11 persons convicted for the 2002 Godhra carnage. Twenty other convicts were sentenced to life in prison. Last week, the court accepted the prosecution’s contention that a conspiracy was hatched to set ablaze coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002, which killed 59 people. The court had held 31 persons guilty for the incident. However, according to section 28 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), execution of the sentence delivered by a judge of Additional Session Judge (ASJ) cadre is subject to confirmation of a high court-in this case, the Gujarat high court.

Special public prosecutor JM Panchal, who sought death for all the convicts, argued that the Godhra incident was not comparable to any other criminal case in history. Thus, he argued, it fit into the ‘rarest of the rare’ category specified by the apex court for capital punishment. Finer details like grounds on which punishment was determined for each convict are not clear yet. “The court has delivered its verdict and its observation will only be known after the full text of the judgment is made available to the accused.

IM Munshi, the lawyer representing the accused, said he would move the Gujarat high court against the verdict. “It is difficult to understand the judgment,” he said. “Till we get the copy of the judgment, we cannot comment much. But we will definitely appeal against the verdict in the high court. The judgment cannot be implemented till the high court confirms the sentence,” said Munshi. If the high court upholds the special court’s ruling, the convicts have the option of moving the Supreme Court.

New Delhi, Aug 10: The mercy plea of Afzal Guru, who has been convicted in the terror attack on the Parliament, might be rejected by the president. The Home Ministry on Wednesday, Aug 10 urged president Pratibha Patil to overrule the petition filed by Afzal Guru seeking dismissal of the capital punishment bestowed on him. New Delhi, Aug 10: The mercy plea of Afzal Guru, who has been convicted in the terror attack on the Parliament, might be rejected by the president. The Home Ministry on Wednesday, Aug 10 urged president Pratibha Patil to overrule the petition filed by Afzal Guru seeking dismissal of the capital punishment bestowed on him. Earlier, on the same day, Minister of State for Home, Mullappally Ramachandran informed in Rajya Sabha, "The mercy petition case of death convict Mohd. Afzal Guru has since been submitted to the President's Secretariat on Jul 27, 2011 for a decision." Guru was convicted of conspiracy in the Dec 2001 Parliament attack and was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court in 2004. The sentence was scheduled to be carried out on Oct 20, 2006. However, Guru's execution was stayed following a mercy petition filed by his wife. Now, it seems that Afzal Guru will soon be hanged if the president rejects the mercy plea petition

In India, even after keeping criminal like Maulana Masood Azar in jail for more than five years no evidence could be collected against him and it is indeed ironical that the same person who was released as a ransom package after the hijack of an Indian Airlines Jet masterminded the attack on Indian Parliament. Many terrorists accused are allowed to go Scot- free in the absence of sufficient evidence. If such type of lacunas are allowed to be kept and no follow up action is taken against such casual police officials, no law can ever be successful. Though, India has legislations for combating terrorism, but there are mainly two lacunas in these legislations: - firstly, Indian laws fail to make defeating terrorism a national priority, secondly, technology has dramatically outpaced the statutes of India.

This has in turn led to increase in deaths and destruction of property. Most people have carried out research to determine the causes of terrorism. The researchers argue that understanding the causes of terrorism will help develop the right measures to prevent terrorism. The researchers have identified various factors that motivate terrorists to carry out terrorists attacks. For instance, terrorists are motivated by social and political injustices to commit terrorist activities. Social and political injustices are common in many countries. The social injustices have resulted from unequal distribution of resources in the countries. Most people live below the poverty line due to lack of resources. This has resulted to acts of revenge as people want to get enough resources. For instance, the social injustices in Iraq and Afghanistan led to terrorists attacks in the country and other countries. The resources in these countries have not been distributed equally. This has made it difficulty for the various groups to live in harmony.

The relationship between terrorism and democracy continues to challenge scholars in their search for causes of terrorism. It is generally agreed that a lack of democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law are preconditions for many forms of domestic terrorism. Generally, the most democratic and the most totalitarian societies have the lowest levels of oppositional violence. Failed or weak states on the other hand, lack the capacity – or sometimes the will – to exercise territorial control. This often leaves a power vacuum that is can be exploited by terrorist organizations to maintain safe havens, training facilities or serve as bases for launching terrorist campaigns. However, this should not be perceived as simply a lack of democracy or democratic processes. Long standing liberal democracies with established traditions of free speech and tolerance have been the targets of both domestic and foreign terrorism.

The main causes of terrorism are political and social injustice. Most terrorists have faced social injustices. For example, the terrorists have faced poverty and unequal distribution of resources. The gap between the rich and the poor has widened greatly for the last three decades. This has resulted to unequal distribution of income. Hence, this has caused violence in the country. Political injustices like exclusion of certain groups and poor governance have also led to violence. Most groups excluded from the political systems use terrorism as a means to achieve their political goals. Corrupt governments have also forced minority groups to use violence to eliminate them. Religious factors have also led to violence. So, social justice is essential to stop terrorism. There are, however, substantial differences between wars waged by established governments and wars waged by terrorists. Established governments have substantial control over the territory and people they administer. They can start a war, they can stop a war. Terrorist wars are not started by terrorist leaders, nor can they be stopped by terrorist leaders. Terrorist wars are not the result of decisions by leaders, they are the result of feeling by groups of people, united by national, religious or similar ties, of injustice (real or imaginary), which generate hatred towards the oppressors and desire to liberate themselves from the oppressors or to redress the injustice. Sooner or later the more determined and capable members of such groups join together to fight for the common cause, and natural leaders emerge to lead the fight. These leaders have control over their followers only as long as they continue the fight. They can only stop after the fight has been won, or the feeling of injustice motivating the fight disappears. If they try to stop the fight without having achieved the results, they lose their authority as leaders and are replaced by others prepared to fight on. This is why attempts to achieve peace in Ireland and Palestine by reaching agreement between terrorist leaders, turned politicians, and their opponents have invariably failed.

Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being. Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system. The Constitution of the International Labour Organization affirms that "universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice."

As legal and justice professionals have the social responsibility to defend and uphold human rights, social justice, freedom and democracy, they must be equipped with a basic knowledge of how governmental responses to terrorism may at times conflict with such ideals. Legal and justice professionals should, for example, ensure that terror suspects are brought to justice in accordance with the rule of law, or question whether the restriction of freedoms is necessary in preventing and investigating terrorism. As terrorism is an international phenomenon with uncertain jurisdiction, part of this responsibility involves examining and respecting the use of international mechanisms for achieving justice, in order to prevent terrorism being fought through the use of anti-democratic and unlawful means. Fundamental rights to such methods and considerations are respect for human rights. This discussion will attempt to canvass the abovementioned ideals (human rights, social justice, freedom, and democracy) in a broad context within the ‘war on terror’. Such an analysis will focus primarily on the US, not only as the coalition (including Australia) is following its lead, but as it is defining the parameters and ideologies of the war and acting as the moral, political and social role model (by basically claiming moral superiority over other countries). As such, it is important to subject their actions to serious scrutiny.

If justice is seen purely in terms of legal justice (and hence a reflection of those that shape the law), then American justice is truly socially unjust. Furthermore, this demonstrates the role that legal and justice professionals, and their personal beliefs, values, and attitudes can have on terrorising the disadvantaged. Perhaps the most telling example of the value placed on social justice by the government is demonstrated by the recorded spending on military projects as opposed to serious humanitarian problems.

Such scrutiny is also important as the US is a superpower with more means to large-scale violence, quite capable of (and not a stranger to) exercising its hegemony. Furthermore, if the coalition believes that its use of force throughout the world is justified on the basis that it adheres to ‘civilized’ ideals such as human rights, social justice, freedom, and democracy, an analysis of whether these nations substantively demonstrate the values to which they formally espouse is in order. In assessing the relationship between the political climate established by the Reagan administration and public opinion on crime and its control, there is certainly no denying that the New Right has displayed an ability to determine the national agenda in public policy, legislation, and central issues, with their definition of terrorism, which follows an especially a historical and depoliticized conception. In an issue of Crime and Social Justice published before the ascent of the Reagan forces to executive power, we noted the rise to prominence of "intellectuals for law and order."

The relationship between terrorism and democracy continues to challenge scholars in their search for causes of terrorism. It is generally agreed that a lack of democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law are preconditions for many forms of domestic terrorism. Generally, the most democratic and the most totalitarian societies have the lowest levels of oppositional violence. Failed or weak states on the other hand, lack the capacity – or sometimes the will – to exercise territorial control. This often leaves a power vacuum that is can be exploited by terrorist organizations to maintain safe havens, training facilities or serve as bases for launching terrorist campaigns. However, this should not be perceived as simply a lack of democracy or democratic processes. Long standing liberal democracies with established traditions of free speech and tolerance have been the targets of both domestic and foreign terrorism.

Conclusion:-
Terrorists have continued their war against India, Killing innocent people is not only a crime but is a form of enmity with the humanity. All those who believe in humanity should prepare themselves for a long war - while maintaining peace. Terrorists like other criminals in the poor environment to carry out terrorist attacks. Apart from the root causes, there are trigger causes. There are various factors that trigger violence. For example, proactive events like excessive use of excessive force causes some groups to use revenge to achieve their goals. Also, exclusion of some groups from participating in the political groups leads to violence. Understanding the root causes and triggers of terrorism will help prevent terrorism. It will help countries develop effective counter terrorism measures.

Terrorism has various implication on the weaponry, technology, policing model and rights and freedom. Various suspicion and voices have been raised by people NGO's under the pretext of constitution, constitutional provisions, and equality before law and civil rights. let us all understand the problem we are now dealing with. And this problem requires various kinds of provisions. Legitimate power has to be given because this is an extraordinary situation. Extraordinary situations require extraordinary remedies. Please do not advise us to use velvet gloves. Terrorism has several consequences that have to be faced in the context of a growing threat to the country. References have repeatedly been made to laws in other countries. It is very dangerous to quote selectively.

* Lecturer in Law,
Nandini Nagar Vidhi Mahavidyalaya Nawabganj, Gonda (U.P),
Email: vivek_vivek215@yahoo.com, vivek_llm@rediffmail.com,

End-Notes
. [1994] 3 SCC 569
. (UOI) (2004) 9 SCC 580
. 2002 (1) SC (Cr.) 209
. (2005) 11 SCC 600
. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/2611-bombay-hc-upholds-kasabs-death-penalty/143895-3.html
. NDTV Correspondent, Updated: March 01, 2011 22:32 IST “Godhra case: 11 get death sentence, life terms for 20”
. IBNLive.com, PTI | 08:08 PM,Aug 10,2011
. The Times of India July 19, 2004