IV REVIEW OF LAWS, IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS (A) TERRORIST AND OlSRUPTlVE ACTlVlTIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987 4.1 The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the renewal of which this Commission opposed, was not revived when its life expired on 23 May 1995. Yet the problem continued that many thousands of undertrials remained in jail in various States, as did the danger that they would be forgotten once the A d lappal. On 30 Juns 1995, the number of such undertrials stood at 6000. The Cadmission accordfngly submitted the information at its disposal to the Supreme Court which, on 27 February 1986, gave detailed directions on how to deal with questions of bail in respect of TADA cases. Pursuant to these directions, the number of TADA undertrials in jail had been reduced to 1502 by 1 January 1987. The Cornmiasion has remained in touch with the cornpotent authorities at the Csntre and in the States in respect of the TADA undertrials, with a view to ensuring that the various instructions of the Supreme Court in regard to them are acted upon and that their fate is not forgotten simply because the Act has ceased to exist. (B) ARMED FORCES (SPECIAL POWERS) ACT, 1958 The Commission first rwaived a representation against the Armed Forces (Spscial Powers) Act, 1958 when it visited Nagaland in April 1895. It subsequently learnt that there were proceedings pending before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutional validity of the Act in Writ Petition Nos. 5328 of 1980, 550 of 1982 and 9229 and 9230 of 1882. Thereafter, the attention of the Commission was drawn to the concerns expressed by a n u m k r of other public and civil liberties groups in regard to the provisions of the Ad, the South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre, for instance, even sending to the Commission an analysis that it had made of the Act. 4.2 4.3 In essence, the representations received against the Act assert that its powern are too vast and sweeping and pose a grave threat to the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry of the areas covered by the Act. It is argued, for instance, that the powers under Section 3 to declara any area to be a 'disturbed area" are too wide, unguided and unanalyzed. It is further argued that Sections 4 and 5 are so arbitrary and excessive as to empower the armed forces wen to take away the life of e citizen by firing upon him on the mere ground, inbr alia, that he Is 'acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibitingthe arwrnbty