In order to ensure that discretionary powers granted to the investigating agencies were not misused and human rights violations were not committed, specific safeguards were built into the Act.
[7] Similar to the provisions contained in TADA, the law provided that a suspect could be detained for up to 180 days without the filing of a chargesheet in court.
However, a very major change was introduced, in that unlike TADA, this act had no provision to allow preventive detention.
The provisions in the Act mentioned the possibility of both state and central review committees, but offered few details as to their formation or use.
In December 2003, by an overwhelming majority, India's legislature amended the Act with an ordinance designed to expand the scope of judicial review.
[8] Given the review committee's limitations, only the grievances of those persons with political connections to the central government were likely to be heard.
Only four months after its enactment, state law enforcement officers had arrested 250 people nationwide under the Act, and the number was steadily increasing.