State of emeraencv 261. With regard to that issue, members of the Committee wished to know whether the amendments to article 359 of the Constitution made it permissible in the State of Punjab to derogate from the right to life and the prohibition against torture, as well as from the other non-derogable rights mentioned in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant and, if so, whether the Government of India planned to adopt legislation to make its domestic legal regime in this regard consistent with the Covenant: and what safeguards and effective remedies were available to individuals during a state of emergency. 268. In addition, further information was sought regarding a series of laws that had been passed in India relating to terrorism, notably the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the National Security (&nendment) Act, and the Terroriat and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. It was, in particular, inquired to what extent those Acts were consistent with provisions of the Covenant relating to the physical integrity of the person and the obligation to bring a person to trial with the least possible delay and, more generally, to provisions relating to preventive detention and article 4 of the Covenant: whether the authorieation of the use of force even to the causing of death in accordance with those Acts was compatible with article 4, paragraph 2, and article 6 of the Covenant: why those acts had not been proclaimed as emergency legislation and notified as derogations from the Covenant: how an Indian citizen could avail himself before the court6 of the right6 provided for under article 4 of the Covenant: to what extent the commitment of the Government of India to the protection of human right6 had been affected by the chronic instability in the regional situation mentioned in the report: and what measures had been taken to overcome the situations which had occasioned violence in the past and to ensure that legislation was effective in preserving respect for fundamental human rights. 269. In hi6 reply, the representative of the State party said that the amendment providing for the suspension of article 21 of the Constitution referring to the right to life had been superseded and that even during a public emergency an individual enjoyed all the safeguards and remedies that were available at other times. Any suspension'of other rights required presidential action and the approval of the legislature. In view of that procedure, a6 well as the relevant constitutional provisions, there was no possibility of indefinite suspension of power. Any legislation adopted in an emergency which was in conflict with the fundamental right6 of the citizen would be struck down when the state of emergency was terminated, 270. Responding to other questions, the representative said that article 6 of the Covenant did not provide for an absolute prohibition on thal taking of life, but only on the taking of life "arbitrarily". Section 4 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act did not give army officers the right to fire upon civilians "arbitrarily", but only in extraordinary situations and under specific conditions. Moreover, the application of the Act in the absence of a national emergency was not a violation of article 4 of the Covenant because it was possible for the Governmsnt to declare an emergency situation in individual disturbed areas. The validity of the Armed Force6 (Special Powers) Act had been challenged in the Assam courts and upheld by the New Delhi High Court. Furthermore, when acceding to the Covenant, India had expressed the clear reservation that it did so only subject to the provisions of -6B-