I
103D CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1519
To reduce United States development assistance to India unless the
Government of India repeals certain special or preventive detention laws.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 30, 1993
Mr. 
BURTON
of 
Indiana 
(for 
himself, 
Mr. 
FALEOMAVAEGA, 
Mr.
ROHRABACHER, Mr. WILSON, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. COX, Mr.
MORAN, Mr. HERGER, Mr. MILLER of California, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr.
TRAFICANT, Mr. CRANE, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. PETE
GEREN of Texas, Mr. PAXON, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. FIELDS of Texas, Mr.
ZELIFF, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. HOKE, Mr. POMBO, Mr.
BAKER of California, Mr. KING, Mr. LEVY, and Mr. DREIER) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs
A BILL
To reduce United States development assistance to India
unless the Government of India repeals certain special
or preventive detention laws.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice in India Act’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that—
(1) each year, in both Jammu and Kashmir and
the Punjab, the Government of India detains thou-
sands of persons under special or preventive deten-
tion laws without informing them of the charges
against them;
(2) most of these detainees are political pris-
oners, including prisoners of conscience;
(3) they are often detained for several months
and sometimes even more than a year;
(4) detainees are not permitted any contact
with lawyers or family members unless they are re-
manded to judicial custody and transferred to pris-
on, and only then if the family on its own is able
to locate the detainee;
(5) in most cases, these persons are detained
under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Pre-
vention) Act of 1987, the National Security Act of
1980, and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety
Act of 1978;
(6) the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Pre-
vention) Act of 1987 authorizes administrative de-
tention without formal charge or trial for up to 1
year for investigation of suspected ‘‘terrorist’’ or
broadly defined ‘‘disruptive’’ activities;
(7) the 1-year period of permissible detention
before trial violates Article 9 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which
India is a party;
(8) Article 9 of the International Covenant pro-
vides, ‘‘Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal
charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or
other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial
power and shall be entitled to trial within a reason-
able time or to release.’’;
(9) under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activi-
ties (Prevention) Act of 1987, all proceedings before
a designate court must be conducted in secret ‘‘at
any place other than...[the court’s]...ordinary place
of sitting’’;
(10) section 16(2) of the Terrorist and Disrup-
tive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987 permits the
designated court to keep the ‘‘identity and address
of any witness secret’’;
(11) under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activi-
ties (Prevention) Act of 1987, a confession to a sen-
ior police officer can be admitted as evidence if there
is reason to believe it was made voluntarily;
(12) the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act of 1987 amends India’s criminal
code, which prohibits such confessions, and substan-
tially increases the risk of torture;
(13) the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act of 1987 reverses the presumption
of innocence, placing the burden on the accused to
prove that he or she is not guilty;
(14) the National Security Act of 1980 permits
the detention of persons without charge or trial for
up to 1 year in order to prevent them from acting
in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state,
the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of
supplies and services essential to the community, or
relations with a foreign power;
(15) the National Security Act of 1980 was
amended to permit 2 years detention in the Punjab;
(16) under this Act, India may detain any per-
son engaged in behavior ‘‘prejudicial to the defense
of India, the relations of India with foreign powers,
or the security of India’’;
(17) the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety
Act of 1978 empowers India to detain persons with-
out trial for up to 1 year for a broad range of activi-
ties, including ‘‘promoting, propagating, or attempt-
ing to create, feelings of enmity or hatred or dishar-
mony on grounds of religion, race, community, or
region’’;
(18) 
the 
Armed 
Forces 
(Punjab 
and
Chandigarh) Special Powers Act of 1983 and the
Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Pow-
ers Act of 1990 empower Indian security forces to
search homes without warrant, to make arrests with-
out warrant, to destroy the ‘‘hideouts’’ of suspected
terrorists, and to shoot to kill with immunity from
prosecution;
(19) Indian security forces routinely employ
methods of torture, beatings, and threats to induce
detainees to sign statements of confession and to
identify suspected militants;
(20) the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act of 1987, the National Security Act
of 1980, the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act
of 
1978, 
the 
Armed 
Forces 
(Punjab 
and
Chandigarh) Special Powers Act of 1983, and the
Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Pow-
ers Act of 1990 facilitate human rights abuses by
suspending ordinary safeguards against arbitrary ar-
rest, incommunicado detention, and torture; and
(21) these 5 laws are incompatible with the
principles of a modern democracy.
Forces (Punjab and Chandigarh) Special Powers Act of
1983, and the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Spe-
cial Powers Act of 1990.
Æ