Meaning of UAPA

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) came into existence in the year 1967, the motive behind it was to curb the illegal associations that were at peak during those years, and no effective mechanism were in existence to deal with it, so it empowers the central government to put reasonable restrictions and it does that by banning of any association by a simple announcement which the government considered unlawful. The problem starts to arise when amidst the stringent follow up of this act its excessive power starts to affect the rights of individuals and the very spirit of democracy.

It is indeed important for criminalizing some organizations because they are lethal for national security but on the context dissolving the difference between political opinions and criminal actions is not acceptable. Its nature takes us back to the time of the colonial psyche where the main aim of their governance was to suppress all kinds of power that start to shape against their interests and if needed adopting the more effective method of banning.

The justification which is put forth whenever question rises on its legality is validated by saying their foremost objective is national security. But it is unworthy to accept this as a defense when only one section is targeted (left-wing extremism) on an ideological basis. Grievous action like communal violence is protected under the act; it is designed in such a way which proves that the Hindu right-wing organization is protected at the cost of minorities and rejectionist.  Hence, it can be easily contemplated that the purpose for which the act was passed was not achieved and the task of curbing unlawful activities was not dealt with the serious penalization.

 

Major Criticisms

In 2004 the definition of unlawful activities changed when the term ‘terrorist act’ from the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was inserted, along with the concept of the terrorist gang which evolved the meaning of unlawful activities. It expanded its scope of dogmatic watchdog process, in addition to this it came with lots of ambiguous statements which made it difficult to establish some concrete observation to abide by. Then again in the year 2012, the central government took the drastic step to infringe the human rights blatantly by establishing the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC). Government-authorized them to conduct the intelligence and investigation related functions rampantly; excessive power was given to them in which they have the right to conduct search and arrest of individuals without the permission of state government. So, they exercise the extensive and unchecked power in the name of investigation without any regulation and accountability.

Under the realm of this act, some terms indicates that they are remarkably prejudiced because the incidences like communal violence is not defined as an offense but damaging property is, which states that by taking into consideration one or two classes amendments were made to target them. Also, this act, does not mention any term like physical violence which must be a prerequisite for charging the people, and the reality of its arbitrariness came up at the forefront. Penalization of any belief, opinion, and thoughts that is personal is not the affairs of the state where they should interfere and a certain distance is important for the welfare of the state as well as for the growth of an individual.

In the Indian Constitution Article 19 (2) states about the reasonable restrictions but it can be applied only when it is passed through legislation or the basis is sovereignty, the integrity of the nation, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, decency and morality, but it should not be assumed that mere identifying the above-stated facts is the criteria for the application of reasonable restrictions. The concept of reasonable restrictions is provided to the government with some responsibility and its proper conduction is important otherwise it can develop distrust among the population and ultimately will create the process of administration difficult.

Supreme Court referred that the anticipated damage must not be remote, speculative, and unlikely because the purpose of reasonable restrictions will automatically get terminated if the description of its imposition is not clear. The other important responsibility of the government is to deter the direct and destructive incitements and liberation from political agenda and unsourced news whose main aim is to seek negative attention and if require in some exceptional circumstances implementation must be in such a way that it does not create a burden on the freedom of expressions.

Section 39 and the recent amendments

The most controversial of the UAPA Act is section 39 which states that it prevents the expressions of any political ideas that are progressive or even opposite to the injustice to people’s daily life. It promulgates that fostering of injustice is not relevant enough to take into consideration despite the fact it is hampering the freedom of speech and expressions. It states that the invocation of UAPA will apply as a preventive measure to suppress voices before being said, which deflects the procedure established by law and is staunch engrossment of liberation of speech.

Judicial morality is mostly reflected during the judicial decisions but this follows the opposite norm as morality is not even considered appropriate for deliberation. Suppression and penalization process starts even before any action has been performed, human rights are kept at stake and its violation starts from the time when someone comes under the purview of the act. The attempt of even committing the unlawful activities and terrorist act is dealt with harsh punishment and there can be incidences where a person can face life imprisonment for an act that has not been committed.

Now, the most important one that is the redressal process which is quite stringent and biased as firstly the organization needs to appeal to the government and if disposed of the appeal goes to a committee which itself is an extended body of the government, so the organization is not provided the required space to argue their case. It violates the nature of approaching the system because it is the right of an individual or organization to get the opportunity to put their side in the court of law without any external influence but under this act, this very provision also gets transgressed. There is no major distinction between legitimate and criminal association so it explains that if an association is considered unlawful through any means there will be no criteria of distinguishing between the two, so the analytical basis will be their artificial vision that ensures its illegality and other relevant evidences is not their matter of concern.

The other major criticism of the act is it talks only about the disaffection, but not provided with the proper explanation as the criteria for disaffection differs from a grudge to rebellion, so interpreting the difference and acting on that is an important criteria but the intention part is ignored grossly and all culprits are treated equally without taking into notice the activities performed by them. New amendments have been made to the act in the year 2019, where it is stated that it will now allow the government to identify an individual as a terrorist when one is found to be involved in any terrorism act, preparation of any terror acts, and to any form associated with the terrorist organization. Till 2019 only organization were alleged to have the terrorist connections but now the individuals can be categorized as a terrorist, and in addition to this Director-General of National Investing Agency are empowered to seize the property of the concerned person amidst the ongoing investigation process.

Conclusion

Many petitions were filed against the amendment in the apex court stating that the tagging of any individual as a terrorist even before the commencement of the trial or any application which undergoes under the supervision of judicial officer is against the procedure established by law, because it challenges the Article 21 of Indian Constitution, whose one of the inherit part is right to reputation under the sphere of right to life with dignity. Hence, its identity is opaque as the breach of fundamental rights is not admissible until and unless it is per the provisions stated in the constitution so it can be concluded that for the motive for which this act was passed lost its aim in the very initial years, and still facing many turbulences. The framework of this act from the time of its enactment has negatively affected the individual rights and liberty of freedom. The government was provided this power to weed out the illegal and harmful faction of the society but on the contrary they started using them for the surveillance and vigilance purpose over the people and their opinions creates frictional differences and raised valid questions on its legality.

(Views are personal)

Anjali Kumari