Issues with UAPA
- The law seeks to effectively discourage associations engaged in illicit operations within India.
- The Act gives the federal government total authority, allowing it to declare any conduct to be illegal by the use of an
- Official Gazette, hence proclamate.
- The harshest penalties include life in prison and the death sentence.
Important points:
- Both Indian and international nationals may face charges under UAPA.
- It will apply to the perpetrators in the same way even if the crime is committed outside of India, on foreign soil.
- In accordance with the UAPA, the investigative agency has 180 days to file a charge sheet following the arrests, and the period may be extended further upon notifying the court.
What was the situation?
He was facing charges under the following:
- Foreign Contribution Regulation (FCRA) Act
- Crimes that fall under the purview of Sections 13 and 18 of the Unlawful
- The 1967 Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
What verdict was it?
- It partially quashed the order framing charge, finding no basis to prosecute him for any offences save those covered by Section 13 of the UAPA.
The Court reminded other courts and law enforcement organisations in a timely manner:
- The extensive restriction on freedom allowed by the anti-terror statute necessitates more caution in its application, not less.
- Regarding substantive legal issues (Shah’s attorney’s argument), the State had not shown a connection between his publication of an article and the criminal offence of terrorism, hence the charges under Section 18 could not be supported by the law.
- The government’s response: The piece was a terror attack since it aimed to damage India’s reputation, which is considered “property.”
- The High Court decided that to side with the government would be to create a whole new offence, which would turn criminal law on its head.
- It seemed like a bridge too far to cross to treat accusations of slandering the nation as terrorism.
Crucial query:
- Is bail always statistically denied under Section 43-D(5) when the charges are “prima facie true”?
- The High Court claims that clauses like Section 43-D(5) were designed to impede the simple release of individuals like the
- fictitious bomber.
- It couldn’t grow into impassable barriers that kept people like the shepherd from being released.
- The High Court ruled that people are only placed in custody where there is a “clear and present danger.”
Problems:
- The application of UAPA to the arrest and detention of people in circumstances where they are either totally unrelated to real violent incidents or people
- has a well-documented history of being tenuously linked to such tragedies.
- The UAPA’s terrorism offences are ambiguous, especially when combined with Section 18’s preparatory offence.
- It permits the statute to categorise actions that appear to be harmless by casting an unfathomably broad net.
- The UAPA’s Section 43-D(5) makes the latter most clear by prohibiting judges from providing bail if they determine that the police
- The allegations are established as “prime facie true” by the materials.
- The UAPA regime’s two main characteristics had a role in Mr. Shah’s arrest and prolonged confinement.
- It was not a radical conclusion that the anti-terror statute did not go so far as to punish claimed defamation of the nation.
- The justifications for proportionality in limiting arrests by applying the “clear and present danger” standard are not new.
- The High Court recognises the significance of earlier court rulings, like Joginder Kumar, in this regard.
- How about restitution or reparations for unjustified detention and arrest? the state’s responsibility to make up for the years that the guilty could never get back.
- Using the UAPA to characterise an individual’s claimed defamation of the nation as an act of terror in order to support their arrest and extended imprisonment is merely a minor incident in that lengthy and largely unremarkable history.
- The rulings in Vernon Gonsalves and Fahad Shah by the Supreme Court of India both hold that courts do not need to take revolutionary actions in order to protect individual liberty against repressive laws and their implementation.
- Those who are willing to take the necessary steps can simply chart the course to keep the state accountable.
- The SC was urged to invalidate “the offensive portions of the UAPA” by Justice Rohinton Nariman.
- The discussion of UAPA needs to go beyond the legality of a few chosen clauses; rather, its entire intent and reach should be carefully considered.
- The Court has to decide if the scope and effects of UAPA are significantly excessive in comparison to its stated objectives.
