The recent decision of a Delhi court granting bail to a former Congress councillor, embroiled in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (UAPA) case, has reinvigorated the discourse on this law. This was a case associated with the 2020 anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, (CAA) protests. A closer examination of the UAPA and its impacts is essential to understand the complexity of the situation.
Understanding Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
The Citizenship Amendment Act, enacted in 2019, offers citizenship to six non-Muslim communities – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians – from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who migrated to India before December 31, 2014. Additionally, it excuses these communities from any prosecution under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport Act, 1920 that otherwise penalizes illegal entry and overstay in India.
The Court’s Ruling and Its Implications
Despite arguments from the prosecution about limitations in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the court granted bail to the accused, indicating that this section only restricts but does not totally prevent bail. The implication is that once charged under the UAPA, it becomes exceedingly difficult to secure bail—a problematic issue given that bail is a safeguard to ensure individual liberty.
Bail Related Provisions and Issues under UAPA
The restrictive nature of Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA, which puts constraints on granting bail if the police present reasonable grounds to believe the accusations, results in little room for judicial interpretation, thus making bail nearly impossible to achieve. It’s noteworthy that the Supreme Court in 2019 confirmed that courts must accept the state’s case without examining its merits. However, subsequent interpretations have stressed the right to a speedy trial and set higher standards for the state to charge an individual under UAPA.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967
The UAPA, introduced in 1967 and strengthened in 2008 and 2012, was designed as an anti-terrorism law. The amendment bill passed in August 2019 allows individuals to be labeled as ‘terrorists’. This law deviates from ordinary legal procedures by curtailing constitutional safeguards of the accused. Moreover, the frequent application of this law suggests potential misuse, much like other anti-terrorism laws in India’s past.
Other Associated Issues of the UAPA
There is criticism about the vague definition of a “terrorist act” in the UAPA which does not align with the United Nations’ guidelines. Also, the high rate of pending trials is concerning, pointing towards long years of undertrial imprisonment. There are also concerns over state overreach, undermining federalism and individual liberty.
The Way Forward
Moving forward, it’s essential for the judiciary to scrutinize potential misuse. The fairness and objectivity of the law should be kept in check through judicial review. Misuse and abuse of powers under this law must result in stringent repercussions. Navigating the delicate balance between individual freedom and state security is a conundrum, necessitating a combined effort from the state, judiciary, and civil society.