The Ministry of Home Affairs recently presented some significant data in the Rajya Sabha that has caught the attention of the public. According to this data, between 2016 and 2019, only 2.2% of cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, resulted in court convictions. The data, drawn from the 2019 Crime in India Report by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), opens up a conversation about the effectiveness of the UAPA.
Enactment of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
Introduced in 1967, the UAPA was a replacement for previous anti-terrorism laws like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act – TADA (which lapsed in 1995) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act – POTA (repealed in 2004). Until 2004, the term “unlawful activities” meant actions linked to secession and cession of territory. However, post-2004, the list of offences included “terrorist act”, thereby broadening its scope.
Main Provisions and Powers
Granting absolute power to the central government, the Act allows it to declare any activity as unlawful via an Official Gazette. Furthermore, under the UAPA, authorities can file a charge sheet within 180 days after arrests, and the duration can be extended further. Notably, both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged under this Act, even if the crime is committed overseas, outside India. The most severe punishments under the UAPA include the death penalty and life imprisonment.
Amendments to the Act in 2019
In August 2019, an amendment was made to the UAPA, permitting designating individuals as terrorists if they commit, prepare for, promote or are involved in terrorist activities. This provision mirrors those in Parts 4 and 6 of the Act, allowing for organisations to be labelled a “terrorist organization”. Further, the Act empowers the Director General of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to approve seizure or attachment of property associated with an investigation. Additionally, officers of NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above, can investigate terrorism cases.
Controversies Surrounding the UAPA
The UAPA has often been criticised for undermining individual liberty, being a potential blockade to the right to dissent, and subverting federalism. Some critics argue that it provides vaguely-defined powers to the state to detain and arrest individuals suspected of terrorist activities, thereby potentially infringing on Article 21 of the Constitution. There are also concerns about the Act stifling the right to free speech and expression by curbing dissent under the cloak of combating terrorism. Furthermore, experts suggest that the UAPA undermines the federal structure by sidelining state police authority in terrorism cases, despite ‘Police’ being a state subject under the 7th schedule of the Indian Constitution.
Future Considerations
Given the concerns surrounding the misuse of the UAPA, it is crucial to ensure that its provisions are followed meticulously and do not serve as tools to wrongfully implicate individuals. Striking a balance between preserving fundamental freedoms and protecting state interests poses a unique challenge that law enforcement officers must tackle while maintaining professional integrity. Lastly, the judiciary has a significant role in examining cases of alleged misuse of the UAPA and checking for any underlying arbitrariness or subjectivity through its power of judicial review.