The recent demise of Father Stan Swamy, a Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist, while in judicial custody, has raised questions about the strict provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). As India’s primary anti-terrorism legislation, UAPA’s stringent bail conditions have come under scrutiny. Regarded as a key contributing factor to Fr. Swamy’s death, these conditions are considered by some as an infringement on constitutional freedoms.
The Genesis of UAPA
The roots of UAPA can be traced back to the mid-1960s when the Indian Government proposed to establish a rigorous law to curb various secession movements. This proposed legislative measure took on greater urgency after the peasant uprising in Naxalbari in March 1967. Subsequently, on 17th June 1966, the President promulgated the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Ordinance designed to prevent individuals’ and associations’ unlawful activities more effectively. Although initially met with resistance in Parliament due to its harsh nature, the ordinance was finally passed and UAPA was enacted in 1967.
Objective and Provisions of UAPA
The main objective of UAPA is to deem any association or group of people “unlawful” if they indulge in activities that envisage secession or question the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Prior to UAPA, associations were declared unlawful under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952. However, this provision was considered unlawful by the Supreme Court due to the absence of a judicial mechanism to scrutinise the validity of bans. To address this, UAPA incorporated provisions for a Tribunal that would affirm the legitimacy of declaring an outfit unlawful within six months.
Expansion of UAPA
Following the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002, UAPA’s scope was broadened to include acts categorised as terrorist activities under preceding laws. Amended in 2004 and 2013, the Act’s present form now includes provisions for punishment for terrorist acts and activities threatening national security, measures to avert the use of funds for terrorist purposes, and an extended ban duration on organisations from two years to five years.
Working of UAPA
UAPA modifies the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to give it more authority. For instance, a remand order can be for 30 days instead of the usual 15, and the maximum period of judicial custody before the filing of a chargesheet is extendable from the usual 90 days to 180 days.
Controversies Surrounding UAPA
UAPA has faced criticism over its vague definition of a “terrorist act,” which is substantially different from the United Nations’ definition. The Act’s Section 43(D)(5), which makes obtaining bail difficult for accused persons, has also faced opposition. Furthermore, with the justice delivery system’s pendency rate at 95.5%, the state seems to have a disproportional power in such cases, which many believe undermines federalism.
Treading the delicate balance between individual freedoms and state obligations for security remains a classic dilemma. It rests upon the state, judiciary, and civil society to strike a balanced approach between safeguarding constitutional liberties and the necessities of anti-terror operations.
