UAPA
About:
- The UAPA had amendments in 2004 and 2008 that were modelled after anti-terror statutes after it was first enacted in 1967.
- The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019, which was passed by Parliament in August 2019, allows for the designation of people as terrorists in accordance with the Act’s specific criteria.
- It builds an unusual regime with the barest amount of constitutional protections for the accused in order to deal with offences related to terrorism by departing from the regular judicial process.
- 4,231 FIRs overall were submitted between 2016 and 2019, when the National Crime Records Bureau gave UAPA numbers, in accordance with various UAPA requirements (NCRB). Of these incidents, 112 resulted in convictions.
- UAPA’s broad use suggests that, like other anti-terror legislation in India like POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) and TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act), it is frequently misinterpreted and abused.
Related concerns:
- Uncertain Definition of a “Terrorist Act”: The United States of America (UAPA) and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Countering Terrorism have significantly different views on what exactly a “terrorist act” is.
- According to the Special Rapporteur, three conditions must be met in order for an offence to qualify as a “terrorist act” as a whole:
- In order to instil fear among the populace or convince a government or other international organisation to take action or refrain from taking it, the act must be carried out with fatal force, with an ideological aim in mind.
- The UAPA, on the other hand, defines a “terrorist act” as anything from property damage to person injury or death, which is a very broad and ambiguous definition.
- Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA, which prohibits the release of any accused person on bail in situations where police have filed a chargesheet and there are good grounds to think that the accusation against the individual in question is at least presumptively genuine, is the fundamental problem with the law.
- It is extremely difficult to obtain bail when the police decide to charge someone under the UAPA, as stated in Section 43(D)(5). Bail protects and guarantees the freedom that is guaranteed by the constitution.
- Trial Status: 95.5 percent of cases are still outstanding, on average, according to India’s justice delivery system.
- Less than 5% of proceedings are successfully concluded each year, which emphasises the justifications for protracted durations of incarceration pending trial.
- Country abroad: Additionally, it includes any actions that are “likely to threaten” or “likely to incite fear in people,” giving the government total discretion to label any activist or average person a terrorist without them having actually committed these crimes.
- It grants the state broad authority to hold and imprison those it suspects of supporting terrorism.
- As a result, the Article 21 of the constitution’s guarantees of personal freedom are more subject to state supervision.
- Undermining of federalism According to the 7th schedule of the Indian Constitution, “Police” is a state subject; therefore, some experts believe that because it disregards the jurisdiction of state police in terrorism cases, the federal structure is violated.
- According to the court’s ruling, the UAPA’s application must be restricted to activity that may legitimately fit under a fair description of “terrorism” because it was created to deal with terrorist offences.
- In its ruling in Union of India v. K. earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld constitutional freedom.
- Najeeb 2021 claims that even though the UAPA prohibits bail, constitutional courts may nevertheless award it if the accused’s fundamental rights have been infringed.
- The court ruled that in situations where there is no prospect that the trial will be finished within a reasonable amount of time, the UAPA bail limits “will melt down.”
- The Delhi High Court extended this line of thought by concluding that it would not be acceptable for courts to delay releasing an accused until their right to a speedy trial is completely invalidated.
Conclusion:
- A typical example of a conundrum is where to draw the line between individual freedom and the duty of the state to guarantee security. The state, courts, and civil society are responsible for striking a balance between constitutional freedom and the requirement of counterterrorism operations.
