SSC, Bank, IAS, State PSC, SSC JE, UPSC Optional, CDS ...1).pdfUnlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 ,is an Indian law aimed at effective prevention of unlawful activities associations

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 ,is

an Indian law aimed at effective prevention of

unlawful activities associations in India.

Its main objective was to make powers available to

state for dealing with activities directed against the

integrity and sovereignty of India

Like the page for updates, articles and PDFs

www.facebook.com/mahipalsinghrathore

Why UAPA was enacted?

• Article 19, which guarantees the fundamental freedoms of

expression, assembly and association had continuously been

defanged since 1951.

• The 1st amendment amended Article 19 to add the word ‘reasonable’

before restrictions and to add ‘public order’ as being one more

ground for abridging fundamental rights.

• 1962 war, secession threats from Tamil nadu political groups in 1960s

• Committee on National Integration and Regionalism appointed by the

National Integration Council (NIC) recommended further restrictions

on fundamental rights in 1963

• The 16th Constitution amendment Act, 1963, was enacted ,

empowering Parliament to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions in

the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, on the:

✓ Freedom of Speech and Expression;

✓ Right to Assemble peaceably and without arms; and

✓ Right to Form Associations or Unions.

• The bill was passed by both the Houses of Parliament and received

the assent of the President on 30 December 1967.

• Indian state could now declare associations that sought secession

from India as ‘unlawful’. In this way, the UAPA gave powers to the

central government to impose all-India bans on associations.

The Amending Acts to UAPA are as follows:

1. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 1969;

2. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1972;

3. The Delegated Legislation Provisions (Amendment) Act, 1986;

4. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004,

5. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2008

6. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2012

2004 - The amended UAPA made substantial changes to the definition of

‘unlawful activity’ included the definition of ‘terrorist act’ and ‘terrorist

organisation’ from the repealed POTA, and also introduced the

concept of a ‘terrorist gang’.

2008 - On December 17, 2008, another amendment of the UAPA was

moved and adopted following the attack in Mumbai.

More provisions similar to POTA and TADA regarding maximum period

in police custody, incarceration without a charge sheet and

restrictions on bail were brought in.

2012 - Further expanded the already vague definition of “terrorist act”

to include offences that threaten the country’s economic security –

To fulfil FATF commitments

Draconian provisions of UAPA

• Vague definition of terrorism to encompass a wide range of non-

violent political activity, including political protest.

• It authorises the government to ban ‘unlawful organisations’ and

‘terrorist organisations’ (subject to judicial review).

• The definition of “unlawful activities” includes “disclaiming” or “questioning” the territorial integrity of India, and causing

“disaffection” against India. These words are vague and broad, and

come close to establishing a regime of thought-crimes.

• Search , seize and arrest without warrant

• Detention without a charge sheet for up to 180 days and police

custody can be up to 30 days.

• Anticipatory bail is out of the question - presumption of guilt for

terrorist activity without proving it in court

• Creation of special courts, with wide discretion to hold in-camera

proceedings (closed-door hearings) and use secret witnesses

• No sunset clause

• No provisions for mandatory periodic review.

What exactly is a crime acc. to UAPA?

• UAPA criminalises ideology and association.

• By virtue of declaring an organisation ‘unlawful’ or ‘terrorist’ and banning it, these Acts have de facto criminalised their ideologies.

✓ Possession of any literature of such an organisation = Crime

✓ Upholding an ideology without committing any violent act = Crime

✓ Membership or association with such an organisation = Crime

✓ Attending meetings of such association = Crime

*No definition of ‘membership’

In recent Bhima Koregaon arrests , having suspected Maoist links = Crime

Haven’t the courts intervened?

• In 2011, the Supreme Court attempted to narrow the scope of these

provisions, holding that “membership” was limited to cases where an

individual engaged in active incitement to violence.

• Anything broader than that would violate the constitutional

guarantees of freedom of speech and of association.

• The application of this ruling, however, has been patchy and arbitrary

Infringement on Civil liberties

• UAPA is effectively a warrant for perpetual imprisonment without

trial - terror accused have been acquitted after spending more than a

decade in jail.

• Organisations advocating the rights of a certain minority community

or that of oppressed sections are easily labelled as fronts of a

BANNED organisation under UAPA . Their activists or members get

arrested and remain in prison for years, and are denied bail.

• More than 72% people charged under UAPA have been acquitted of

all charges.

• Article 21 and Article 19 are infringed upon by the sections of UAPA

Famous cases of UAPA being used

• KK Shahina , journalist

• GN Saibaba, professor of DU ?

• Jyoti Chorge , 19 year old student possessing Maoist literature

• Hubli conspiracy case – 17 students arrested

• Wahid sheikh – acquitted after 9 years of terror charges

▪ Civil and political rights are based upon the understanding that at no

point should so much power, and so much discretion, be vested in the

state that it utterly overwhelms the individual.

▪ The women and men who occupy the high offices of the state may

have the best of intentions, but they are human like the rest of us, and

therefore imperfect.

▪ The Constitution exists to protect us from the consequences of those

imperfections.

▪ According to backers of UAPA - The state must be given a strong

hand to control terrorist and other violent and disruptive activities.

▪ But this reasoning subordinates every other constitutional value —

freedom of speech, personal liberty, the right to a fair trial — to the

overarching concern of order.

▪ Such an attitude can be justified only in times of war or Emergency

(and even then, subject to safeguards)

▪ UAPA has normalized such attitude in times of peace

Dr. Mahipal Singh Rathore

THANK YOU

facebook.com/mahipalsinghrathore