Home department drafts law to tackle terror better

The Maharashtra home department led by chief minister Devendra Fadnavis is planning to come up with a specialised Act that is well- suited to deal with any kind of terror strikes in advance. The Act includes factors like having a colour coding system on threat inputs followed by a Standard Operating Procedure for all concerned government departments and an unified commander, who will be in charge of the entire anti-terror operations.

A State Security Advisory Board under the CM will act as the apex body for decision-making. A few high-ranking IPS officers serving in Maharashtra police have made a draft for the proposed Act, which is likely to be tabled as a bill before the state legislature. The draft is based on a comparative study of security measures being taken by at least 10 developed countries like Australia.

The name given to the draft is Maharashtra Protection of Internal Security Act (MAPISA). “MAPISA is the answer for terrorism, like the UAPA and the MCOCA for hardened criminals and terrorists. It has a crisis management plan for commercial, non-commercial and government establishments,” the source said.

MAPISA asks for an incident manager or unified commander or a body of one of more persons, which will be in charge of the entire anti-terror operations including all concerned government bodies. It talks about a state incident management system led by the incident manager. The person or body will be empowered with the power to negotiate in a hostage situation, run the control room and communicate with the Centre to get armed forces, etc.

Another aspect taken from the Paris attacks is the colour coding system for threats inputs. In the US, a threat grading system is in place. This helps anti-terror agencies to judge the threat following which appropriate SOPs are undertaken. Many loopholes will also be taken care of by MAPISA. For example, mandating mobile/internet service providers to maintain record and to give information to the police, verification of antecedents of service providers, onus of proof shifted on accused, amending several acts, no easy bail for accused, witness protection, punishment for aiding a terrorist, onus on police to ensure they maintain professional standards and having special courts.