Uapa Prosecutions
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is India’s primary anti-terror law designed to prevent unlawful activities and associations that threaten the sovereignty, integrity, and security of India. Over time, the Act has been amended several times, most notably in 2004, 2008, and 2019, to strengthen the government’s powers to combat terrorism, secessionist movements, and activities deemed a threat to national security.
Key Features of UAPA:
Designation of Terrorist Organizations: The Act empowers the government to designate individuals and organizations as terrorists or terrorist organizations.
Banning of Organizations: The government can ban outfits suspected of unlawful activities.
Enhanced Investigative Powers: Includes extended detention without filing charges, interception of communication, and seizure of property.
Stringent Bail Conditions: Bail is difficult to obtain in UAPA cases due to stringent criteria.
Special Courts: Cases under UAPA are tried in special courts.
Controversies and Criticism:
Misuse: Allegations of misuse against political dissenters, activists, and minority communities.
Presumption of Guilt: The stringent bail conditions often result in long pre-trial detentions.
Judicial Scrutiny: Courts have repeatedly stressed the need to balance national security with fundamental rights.
Key Case Laws on UAPA Prosecutions
1. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003)
Background: This case dealt with the interpretation of “unlawful activity” under the UAPA.
Issue: Whether mere intention without any overt act could be punished under UAPA.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court held that the UAPA penalizes only overt acts, not mere intentions or thoughts. The court emphasized the requirement of a clear act that disrupts sovereignty or integrity.
Significance: Established that UAPA should not be misused to penalize mere speech or dissent.
2. National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019)
Background: Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali was arrested under UAPA for alleged involvement in terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
Issue: The bail application under stringent UAPA provisions.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court reiterated that bail under UAPA is an exception, not a rule, and is only granted if the accused is not prima facie guilty and not likely to commit further crimes.
Significance: Reinforced the high threshold for bail in UAPA cases, emphasizing judicial caution.
3. Disha Ravi Case (2021)
Background: Disha Ravi, a climate activist, was arrested for allegedly editing and sharing a “toolkit” related to the farmers’ protests, charged under UAPA for sedition and promoting enmity.
Issue: Whether editing/sharing a document amounts to unlawful activity under UAPA.
Court Decision: The Delhi High Court granted bail, stating there was no sufficient evidence that Disha Ravi’s actions threatened sovereignty or security.
Significance: Highlighted judicial safeguards against the misuse of UAPA to curb dissent.
4. Teesta Setalvad Case (2019)
Background: Teesta Setalvad, a civil rights activist, was booked under UAPA for alleged links with banned organizations.
Issue: The use of UAPA against activists.
Court Observation: Although the trial is ongoing, the case sparked debate about the broad application of UAPA and the need to protect civil liberties.
Significance: Raised concerns about the potential misuse of UAPA against human rights defenders.
5. S. A. R. Geelani v. Union of India (2022)
Background: Geelani was charged under UAPA for alleged involvement in terrorist activities.
Issue: The right to fair trial and speedy justice under UAPA.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court stressed that prolonged detention without trial violates fundamental rights, urging speedy trial and adherence to due process.
Significance: Affirmed the importance of balancing national security with individual rights.
6. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) – Precursor to UAPA’s Principles
Background: Though predating UAPA, this case is foundational on sedition laws.
Issue: The scope of sedition and its relation to unlawful activities.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court ruled sedition applies only if speech incites violence or public disorder.
Significance: This principle guides judicial interpretation of UAPA provisions related to speech and expression.
Summary:
UAPA prosecutions involve stringent procedures aimed at protecting national security.
Courts have upheld UAPA's power but continuously emphasize safeguarding fundamental rights.
The judiciary remains vigilant against misuse targeting activists and dissenters.
Bail is an exception under UAPA, requiring careful judicial scrutiny.
Fair trial and speedy justice are crucial despite the gravity of offenses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments