72 ... ... ... ... .. REVIEW OF LAWS, IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS (ii) the Review Committee shall suggest measures to ensure that the provisions of the said Act are invoked for combating terrorism only. The impact of the work of the Review Committee will be of interest to the Commission. 5.6 The Commission would like to observe that the constitutionality of the Act has been challenged by a number of non-governmental organizations and human rights activists before the Supreme Court of India, which is seized of the matter. 5.7 The Commission would like to recall, in this connection, the words of the Supreme Court, expressed in 1994, in the case Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & others vs. State of Maharashtra when it stated: "No civilized country could allow terrorism to flourish, but one has to differentiate between a criminal and a terrorist. While all terrorists are criminals, it does not necessarily mean that all criminals are terrorists." The Apex court went on to observe: "Every 'terrorist' may be a criminal but every criminal cannot be given the label of a 'terrorist' only to set in motion the more stringent provisions of TADA" 5.8 The Court's prudent and cautionary words in respect of the misuse of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 deserve to be carefully reflected upon by those now implementing the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. It should not be said that, once again, the distinction between the 'terrorist' and the 'criminal' has been blurred, that the Act has been used in arbitrary and discriminatory ways, or that its stringent provisions have been set in motion when recourse to the ordinary courts and the normal penal law of the land would have sufficed. 5.9 For its part, the Commission will necessarily continue to monitor the implementation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 with great care. N AT I O N A L H U M A N R I G H T S C O M M I S S I O N