New Delhi, Dec. 18: The Supreme Court today said states can invoke the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act as and when required, but must obtain the central government’s prior permission for withdrawing charges against an accused under the legislation.

The new dimension to the anti-terror law was clarified by the apex court during proceedings in the case against Uttar Pradesh MLA Raghuvir Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiyya.

The Mayavati government had booked the legislator under the anti-terror law last year. However, Mulayam Singh Yadav withdrew the charges under the anti-terror legislation after he became chief minister.

A three-judge bench of Justices S. Rajendra Babu, A.R. Lakshmanan and G.P. Mathur adjourned a hearing on a petition challenging the withdrawal of charges to ascertain whether the Centre’s prior permission was obtained by the state government to withdraw the charges against Raja Bhaiyya.

The apex court judges made it clear that “until and unless (the) central government’s consent was obtained”, the case against Raja Bhaiyya under the anti-terror legislation could not be withdrawn.

The withdrawal of charges was challenged in a petition by a batch of witnesses in several criminal cases against Raja Bhaiyya, his father and a relative. The petition contended that if the three accused were released from jail after the withdrawal of charges, the “life and liberty” of the witnesses would be in danger.

The bench referred to the provisions of the anti-terror law that required prior consent of the Union government to withdraw charges against an accused and said the direction of the Uttar Pradesh government withdrawing the charges against Raja Bhaiyya “is without legal sanctity”.

Senior counsel and former Union law minister Ram Jethmalani appeared for the state government and conceded that a trial court could not order withdrawal of charges under the anti-terror law unless the state produced the consent of the central government in this regard.

However, Jethmalani pointed out that the Uttar Pradesh government had amended its criminal law nullifying such a sanction from the Centre.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Centre’s prior permission is necessary to withdraw criminal charges when a central law has been invoked by a state to book an accused.

In the absence of this argument from the state government, the bench said the trial court could not act on the application filed by the public prosecutor as it did not contain the consent of the central government.

“(The) state government cannot withdraw Pota charges as it had invoked a central law,” the bench said, referring to its recent judgment upholding the constitutional validity of the anti-terror law.

While upholding the constitutional validity of the law, the apex court had also opined that Parliament “alone” was competent to frame such a law and that state legislatures could not enact it.

However, state governments could invoke a central law, the Supreme Court had said.

In today’s proceedings, the bench directed the matter to be listed for hearing after the court’s winter vacation to ascertain whether the state government had obtained or subsequently obtains the central government’s consent for withdrawal of charges against Raja Bhaiyya and two others under the anti-terror legislation.