Unlawful Activities Prevention Act And Watali judgement
• Enacted in 1967.
• Purpose – provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations.
• Deals with prevention of terrorist activities and related matters.
• Powers to the central government:
If declared unlawful – to impose all-India bans on associations.
THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967
2. Definition— (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,—
(o) “unlawful activity”, in relation to an individual or association, means any action taken by such individual or association (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise),—
(i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; or
(ii) which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to
disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or
(iii) which causes or is intended to cause disaffection
against India;
•Can declare a person or an
organization as a terrorist or
terrorist organisation if Participating in acts of
terrorism.
Prepares for terrorism.
Promotes terrorism or is otherwise involved in terrorism.
• Investigation of cases – State police and National Investigation Agency.
Issues in UAPA act
• Act does not define terrorism.
• Definition of unlawful activity – covers almost every kind of violent act.
• No objective criteria for categorization of an
individual as a terrorist.
• Does not provide any opportunity to the individual –
to justify the case before the arrest. Information declaring a person a terrorist – can be withheld for 6 months.
• Those arrested can be imprisoned up to 180 days
without filing a charge sheet.
• Union Home Ministry’s data – in 2016 and 2019 only 2.2% of cases registered under the
UAPA resulted in conviction.
Watali Judgement
• Supreme Court’s interpretation of UAPA – affected all later judgements involving UAPA.
• Accused remain in custody throughout the trial – even if evidence produced against the
the accused is invalid.
Essentially excluded the admissibility of evidence at the stage of bail.
• Bail applications – courts must presume that every allegation made in FIR is correct.
• Bail obtained only if the accused produces material to contradict the prosecution.
Burden of proof rests on the accused.
• Precedent used by High courts to unavoidably refuse bail.
• Author – denial of bail for activist Stan Swamy- systemic abuse of majoritarian authority -disregard for the rule of law.
Way forward regarding the judicial precedents – High courts should also examine,interpret and validate the constitutional laws.
Eduindex News 