Whilst upholding the Constitutional validity of TADA, (in 1994) the Supreme Court of India had recommended192 that in order to ensure a higher level scrutiny there must be a Screening Committee or a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government consisting of the Home Secretary, Law Secretary and other secretaries concerned of the various Departments to review all the TADA cases instituted by the Central Government as well as to have a quarterly administrative review, reviewing the action of State Government, in the application of the TADA provisions (in the respective States). The Court had also said that there must be a Screening or Review Committee at the State level to review the action of the enforcing authorities under the Act and screen the cases registered under the provisions of the Act and decide the further course of action in every matter. Under POTA statutory sanction has been given to the suggestion made by the Supreme Court in 1994: Section 60 now provides for setting up of Review Committees. With increasing instances of misuse of POTA by agencies/authorities in the States; and under pressure of Parliament, a Review Committee was ultimately notified by the Central Government on 4 April 2003 – it is headed by a retired Chief Justice of one of India’s High Courts. In October 2003 amendments were passed by Parliament to Section 60 – making the review provision more meaningful and effective.i In December 2003, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutional validity of POTA.193 More recently, the State Government of Tamil Nadu challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments in Section 60 viz. Section 60 (4) (5) (6) (7) – as being an encroachment on the Judicial Power of the Court. This challenge was negatived by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court by judgment dated 4 February 2004, a decision now upheld by India’s Supreme Court on 8 March 2004: the review provisions (Section 60) have been upheld as valid and designed to help prevent misuse or abuse of its provisions by executive agencies of Governments. Whilst the statutory provisions for administrative review of POTA cases has somewhat mitigated the harshness of India’s anti-terrorist law, the provisions of POTA are not strictly in conformity with UN Human Rights Instruments. 191 POTA section 36-48. See Kartar Singh v State of Punjab 1994 (3) SCC 569 – para 265. This was reiterated in R.M. Tiwari’s case 1996 (2) SCC 610; Shaheen Welfare Association v UOI 1996 (2) SCC 616; and Mohd. Husain v State of Rajasthan 2003 (10) SCC 295. 192 94