UAPA Act
- It was passed to make provisions for the more effective prevention of specific illegal activities by people, groups, and organisations, as well as for dealing with terrorist operations.
- In 2004, 2008, 2013, and 2019, it was revised to add new clauses addressing various aspects of terrorism.
Important clauses:
- Foreigners and Indians alike may be charged.
- Even if the crime is done outside of India, it still applies.
- A charge sheet may be filed 180 days after the arrests at the latest.
- If the inquiry isn’t finished in 90 days, the accused is qualified for default bail.
- Trials are conducted by a Special Court under the UAPA.
Adaptation to the UAPA Act of 1967 in 2019:
- An individual or group may be labelled as a terrorist organisation by the Union government if:
- Performs terrorist activities or supports them,
- Anticipates terrorism,
- Encourages terrorism,
- Is additionally associated with terrorism.
- If a National Investigation Agency official is conducting the investigation, the Director-General must approve the property seizure (NIA)
- Cases can be looked into by NIA officers with the level of Inspector or higher.
- A new item has been added to the list of circumstances in which terrorism is committed: the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005).
Concerns Regarding UAPA:
- Acts like POTA and TADA, which were especially passed to combat terrorism, have been seen to be misused in the past.
- Federalism: According to the VIIth Schedule, police is a state subject. Giving NIA investigative and asset-attachment powers is seen as encroaching on governmental authority.
- Denied Bail: In accordance with Section 43D(5), a suspect cannot be released on bail if the court determines that there are good grounds to assume that the allegations are accurate at face value.
- Contrary to other criminal offences where the burden of proof rests with the State, the accused must establish the falsity of the case.
Way ahead:
- Penal provisions must be interpreted firmly and narrowly, according to a sacred principle of interpretation.
- Bail: The court may consider the evidence at hand to determine if the case is, at least in part, true.
- Burden of Proof: The State should bear the greater burden of proof.
- Compensation: Government monies should be used to pay compensation in order to prevent arbitrary arrests.
- Check Misuse: Political vendettas should not be the basis for arrests. Before making a reservation under the terms of UAPA, appropriate research and information should be gathered.
