human rights. The criticism are centred on the following facts:- Under this Act whoever advocates directly or indirectly for cession or secession in any part of India is liable to be punished. The Act provided that a person can be detained up to 1 year without formal charges or trial against him. Section 20 of the Act provides that detainee can be in police custody up to 60 days which increases risk of torture. Also the detainee need not be produced before a judicial magistrate, but instead may be produced before an executive magistrate who is an official of police and administrative service and is not answerable to high court. The trial can be held secretly at any place and also keeps the identity of the witnesses secret violating international standards of fair trial. The Act reverses the presumption of innocence of the accused under the Act. Under section 21 of the Act, the person who is accused of committing a terrorist act where arms and explosives were recovered or made confessions to someone other than a police officer or provided financial assistance for the commission of the terrorist act or by suspicion that the person has arms or explosives or financial assistance to commit the terrorist act, then the person shall be presumed to be guilty unless contrary is proved. A person making confessions to a police officer not below the rank of superintendent of the police can be used as evidence against him. Section 19 of the Act bars persons accused under this Act to appeal except the Supreme court. Impact The number of people arrested under the act had exceeded 76,000, by 30 June 1994. Twenty-five percent of these cases were dropped by the police without any charges being framed. Only 35 percent of the cases were brought to trial, of which 95 percent resulted in acquittals. Less than 2 percent of those arrested were convicted. The TADA act was ultimately repealed and succeeded by the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (2002-2004) and this act was subsequently repealed after much controversy as well. Yet many continue to be held under TADA. Supreme Court ruling The Supreme Court has held that mere membership of a banned organisation does not make the member liable for the punishment under this Act. See also Anti-terrorism legislation References Sources . External links TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987 India Human Rights