Ahmedabad: The State Government Monday defended his laws on terrorism, the control of Gujarat for organized terrorism and crime (Gujctoc), stressed before the Gujarat High Court that this state terrorism could be the subject of the country.
Advocate General Kamal Trivedi is debating to maintain the constitutional validity of Gujctoc to various petitions and satisfaction including that the terrorism subject is handled by the Central Law and the Prevention Law of the Law (UPA) in handling the subject.
The legislative competence of the state government to enforce such laws has been questioned.
In response, the state government proposed that when the law mentions the word terrorism, it is not an international terrorism or cross border, but terrorism that arises in the limits of the state legislature can take care of legal and order problems in the region and its troops who intend to overthrow the government.
“Doing a war against the country, which is treated as the highest base, is in the subject of the country.
Terrorism comes afterwards.
Why can’t intra-state terrorism can’t be the subject of the country?” Trivedi advocate asked.
The state legal officer proposes that the state government cannot enact the law for the security and sovereignty of the nation, but can do it for security within the boundaries of the country and to handle a problem that disrupts public order.
He also questioned why terrorism in the state borders could not be included in the definition of public order.
General Advocates also denied the filing of the Petitioner citing the command of the Supreme Court.
He said taking one line and putting it outside the context is not the right way to interpret the order.
The state government states that the law on terrorism in Gujcoc is in the empping and substance of the enactment of organized crime, and constitutional provisions support the enactment.
He insisted that two legislates on the same problem could operate simultaneously, even when it was assumed for a moment that the state law violated the central law.
In this case, its encroachment is incidental and is not important.
HC is likely to hear more about this on Tuesday.