Comprehensive Analysis Of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

Key Takeaways

• The Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act is an Indian statute that aims to prohibit illegal activities and associations in India.
• The phrase "unlawful association" was included and utilized in the criminal code amendment act of 1908 to criminalize and prosecute the then freedom fighters engaged in the liberation movement in India against the British colonial government.
• The act follows the TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987) and POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002), both of which lapsed and were abolished in 1995 and 2004.

Introduction

Terrorism is a universal phenomenon that manifests itself in various ways. It is a prevalent crime that many groups and, regrettably, certain nations thrive on. As a result, the government has a commitment to safeguard its country and its citizens, which they accomplish through counter-terrorism legislation.

The Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act is an Indian statute that aims to prohibit illegal activities and associations in India. Its principal goal is to provide measures for dealing with acts aimed at undermining India's integrity and sovereignty. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 is the cornerstone of India's anti-terrorism legislation. The law, which was labelled "draconian" because of its features, was designed to curb unlawful activity.

The Act was passed in 1967, but it garnered attention in the years 2008-2012 following the 26/11 Mumbai terror strikes. It is an improved version of the TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987) and POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002), both of which lapsed and were abolished in 1995 and 2004. Because of the dangerous nature of terrorism, UAPA has particular processes in place to resolve matters involving terrorist acts. The National Investigation Agency is India's central enforcement agency in charge of dealing with these incidents.

Historical Background

The origins of UAPA may be traced back to colonial India. The phrase "unlawful association" was included and utilized in the criminal code amendment act of 1908 to criminalize and prosecute the then freedom fighters engaged in the liberation movement in India against the British colonial government. Following the 1962 conflict with China, the National Integration and Regionalism Committee was formed, which advocated more limitations on fundamental rights in 1963. Receiving government approval, the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, was adopted, authorizing the Parliament to set reasonable restrictions on the grounds of India's sovereignty and integrity by modifying Article-19 (2).

Prior to the implementation of the UAPA, the Central Government employed harsh legislation including as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002 to punish violators. These laws were disputed for constitutionality in judgments such as Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [1961 AIR 1787] and PUCL v. Union of India [AIR 1997 SC 568], but the Supreme Court maintained the constitutionality of both cases, emphasizing the significance of national security in the hands of the Government.

Provisions and Amendments

The act specifies what constitutes 'terrorist activities' in Section 15 and 'terrorist offences' and penalties in Chapter IV, Sections 15-23, and terrorist organizations are provided for in Chapter VI, Sections 35-40. This Act empowers the Centre to deem any act they deem unlawful to be illegal.

Amendments to the UAPA legislation were made in 2004 and 2008. Several measures from prior anti-terrorism laws, such as the TADA and the, were integrated POTA. The 2004 modification added the definition of "terrorist act" from POTA to the definition of "unlawful activity." It also established the concept of a "terrorist gang." Another amendment was enacted in 2008 after the Mumbai attacks, giving the central government additional authority. The federal government could now prohibit associations on two grounds: illegality and being a terrorist establishment.The government amended the UAPA in 2012, including offences that endanger the country's economic security under the definition of "terrorist act." It also makes raising donations "from legitimate or illicit sources" illegal.

The most recent change was made in 2019. The Bill modified the UAPA, 1967 to make it more efficient in combating illegal actions and to achieve pledges at the Financial Action Task Force, according to the bill's statement of objects and reasons. The scope of UAPA was enlarged in July 2019. It was updated to allow the government to identify an individual as a terrorist without a trial. Previously, only groups could be classified as terrorists under the Bill.The Indian parliament revised the UAPA, allowing the state to label "individuals" as terrorists under Section 35 of the Act if they:

• commit terrorist activities,
• prepare for terrorist activities,
• promote terrorism, or
• are otherwise associated with terrorism.

Criticism and Controversies

The most recent change to this statute is possibly the most contentious. The significant change in the act as a result of the 2019 amendment was that citizens or individuals could now be categorized as terrorists, as opposed to only organizations previously. Another significant change in the Act was that an investigating officer would need the authorization of the Director-General of Police to take property associated with a terrorist act when conducting an investigation.

The opposition has often expressed alarm that the current amendment may be utilized against civil society activists of political opponents. Every accused person is deemed innocent unless proven guilty under criminal law. This premise drives the criminal justice system. UAPA, particularly with the 2019 modification, runs counter to this principle. In 2020, United Nations special rapporteurs declared that the provisions of the UAPA 2019 violate many articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The definition of Terrorism in the UAPA is an indeterminate and wide term that encompasses practically any type of violent conduct, whether political or non-political. It is argued that such acts can be misused by political parties in order to quickly silence dissenting voices. This Act gives the government the authority to designate any 'unlawful group' as a 'terrorist organisation' and prohibit it, although it is subject to judicial review under Section 36 of the UAPA.

Activists, journalists, and dissenters of the government have all been wrongly imprisoned and tried in the past as a result of this statute in the past.

So far, two petitions against the Act have been filed: Sajal Awasthi v Union of India [W.P. (C) 1076/2019] and Association for Protection of Civil Rights v Union of India [W.P. (C) 1096/2019], with Sajal Awasthi serving as the main petition.The main argument of both Petitioners is that an individual can be labelled a terrorist without any judicial review and even before a trial begins. As a result, they argue that the Amendment Act violates the Constitution's rights to equality (Article 14), free expression (Article 19), and life (Article 21).

Conclusion

UAPA grants the government unrestricted authority and makes a person defenceless in front of the government. This Act violates basic rights including free expression, personal liberty, and the right to a fair trial. There is no question that such harsh rules are essential to combat terrorism so that authorities do not feel weak when prosecuting the accused, yet there is no basis for the Act's imprecise phrasing in many clauses. Without any actual basis, just suspicion of the government is enough to label someone a terrorist. This unchecked authority violates the norms of natural justice. The right to be heard before an adverse action is done is included in the theory of natural justice. The UAPA makes no provision for giving an individual the opportunity to be heard before being labelled a terrorist.The function of the court is critical in maintaining a balance between such legislation, human rights, and constitutional ideals. The judiciary must protect such laws from being abused.