How the UAPA is Wrecking Lives : Daily Current Affairs

Relevance: GS-3: Security Challenges and their Management in Border Areas - Linkages of Organized Crime with Terrorism

Key Phrases: Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019, terrorist act, Terrorist Act, Innocent until Proven Guilty

Why in News?

Recently, an accused in “the Delhi riots cases” who was charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 was denied bail by a Sessions Court in Delhi. He was involved in a protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019.

About Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act:

The UAPA, an upgrade on the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act TADA (lapsed in 1995) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act – POTA (repealed in 2004) was passed in the year 1967
It aims at effective prevention of unlawful activities associations in India.
Till 2004, “unlawful” activities referred to actions related to secession and cession of territory.
The 2004 amendment, added “terrorist act” to the list of offences.
Under the act, the investigating agency can file a charge sheet in maximum 180 days after the arrests and the duration can be extended further after intimating the court.
Powers to Union Government: If Centre deems an activity as unlawful then it may, by way of an Official Gazette, declare it so.
It has death penalty and life imprisonment as highest punishments.

2019 Amendment of UAPA

The act was amended to designate individuals as terrorists on certain grounds provided in the Act.
- Earlier only organizations could be declared as such
- Not designating individuals as terrorists, would give them an opportunity to circumvent the law and regroup under different name
It empowers the Director General of NIA to grant approval of seizure or attachment of property when the case is investigated by NIA
- Earlier it required the consent of State Police which delayed the process
It empowers the officers of the NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above, to investigate cases of terrorism
- This will help solve the human resource crunch in the NIA.

Controversial Provisions:

The definition of terrorism in Section 15 of the law is broad and encompassing, encompassing practically every type of violent conduct, political or non-political.
The police have the authority under sections 43A and 43B to search, seize, and arrest anybody engaging in illegal activity without a warrant.
With the court’s consent, the police can remove the accused from judicial custody and place him in police custody.
The accused does not have the option of anticipatory bail under UAPA. It presumes the accused guilty simply based on the evidence gathered.

Criticism of UAPA

Experiences of Anti-terror laws in India such as POTA and TADA reveals that they are often misused and abused.
An individual cannot be called a ‘terrorist’ prior to conviction in a court of law, it subverts the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. A wrongful designation will cause irreparable damage to a person’s reputation, career and livelihood.
The law could also be used against political opponents and civil society activists who speak against the government and brand them as “terrorists.”
Critics argue that the law, especially after 2019 amendment gives unfettered powers to investigating agencies.
Some experts feel that it is against the federal structure, given that ‘Police’ is a state subject under 7th schedule of Indian Constitution.

Critics of provisions of UAPA cite the following as examples of misuse of the Act:

Recent crackdown on Jamia Millia Students
Cases filed against the social activists Rona Wilson Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence
The arrest of Peasants’ leader Akhil Gogoi
The arrest of Sharjeel Imam
The arrest of Kashmiri Photojournalist Masrat Zahra
Arrest of Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha

Way Forward:

Undoubtedly there is a need for stringent laws that show ‘zero tolerance’ towards terrorism but the government should also be mindful of its obligations to preserve fundamental rights while enacting legislation on the subject.
Drawing the line between individual freedom and state obligation to provide security is a case of classical dilemma. It is up to the officers to ensure professional integrity, follow the principle of objectivity and avoid any misuse.
There is a greater role for judiciary here to carefully examine the cases of alleged misuse. Arbitrariness under the law should be checked through Judicial review.

Sources: Economic-Times EPW

Mains Question:

Q. Critically analyze the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in light of the recent amendments and its use in present times with suitable examples?