Syllabus: GS2/ Polity
In News
- The Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, dismissing a petition that challenged the law as being ultra vires and violative of fundamental rights.
- The Court underscored the objectives of national security and public order.
What is UAPA?
- Enactment: Brought into force in 1967, being amended several times—most notably in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2019—to include terror-related offences and empower the government with wider discretionary powers.
- Purpose: To prevent unlawful activities, including terrorism, that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India.
- Provisions: It grants the government powers to ban organisations, designate individuals/organisations as terrorists, and prescribe enhanced investigation and detention procedures (including extended pre-charge detention and stringent bail conditions).
Arguments in Favour of UAPA
- National Security: Advocates contend that India faces persistent threats from terrorism, and stringent laws like UAPA are essential to equip agencies to prevent and respond to such threats.
- International Obligations: Amendments align Indian law with international conventions and UNSC resolutions against terrorism.
- Pre-emptive Powers: Allows security agencies to act before threats escalate—by banning organizations, freezing assets, etc.
Criticisms and Arguments Against UAPA
- Vague Definitions & Overbroad Powers: Critics argue the Act allows the executive wide discretion to designate individuals or organisations as “terrorist” or “unlawful” without adequate definition or robust judicial safeguards.
- Civil Liberties & Dissent: The law is seen as a tool to suppress dissent, given instances where activists have faced prosecution under its provisions.
- Extended Detention & Bail: UAPA restricts bail and allows extended pre-trial custody, drawing concern for violating rights to liberty and fair trial.
Source: TH
Previous article
Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy (MRT)
