Recent incidents in India have invoked many questions on the applicability of the Unlawful Activities Prevention act of 1967, under which tribal rights activists were provided with the stringent procedure to follow for bail. His death recently has also increased the hue over this famous Indian Anti-terrorism law. Articles 21 and 19 have been violated in most of the cases and sometimes article 14 as well that we have witnessed in recent years, especially during the NDA government regime. Personal liberties of various people, including activists and those who question the actions of the government, are at stake with the existence of this legislation. Recently petitions were filed before the Supreme court bench challenging the basic constitutionality of various provisions in the said act of 1967. This article will first look into provisions in this act of 1967 and will conclude with the said case filed before the supreme court of India challenging a few of the provisions in it.
Objectives behind UAPA:
As we know already in order to get an understanding of the essence and intention of the parliament while making any legislation, it is important to look into the preamble of such law and the questions on the law should be interpreted in light of those objectives mentioned in the preamble. It states that the objective behind the law is to ensure that there is proper and effective prevention and control of those unlawful activities of any individual (s) and the organizations. It also includes the prevention of terrorist activities in India and any matters connected therewith. The legislative text also denotes the requirement of India as a state under the resolution passed by the United Nations Charter in the year 2001 for the enactment of this law to ensure there is the prevention of international terrorism. Similarly, in the year 2008, the Union government came up with the prevention and suppression of terrorism order, 2007, as has been empowered to do so through the powers conferred under section 2 of the United Nations (Security Council) act 1947.
Definitions clause:
Section 2 provides a definition clause under the act of 1967. Let us look few important definitions under the same.
- Section 2(ec) defines who is a person under the act. It includes any individual, a company or a firm or an organization or an association of persons or a body of individuals irrespective of whether incorporated or not. It also includes any artificial juridical person who is not included in the above-mentioned category of persons and also includes any kind of agency, office or branch owned or controlled by any person not falling within the meaning covered in the above clauses.
- Section 2(o) defines the term ‘Unlawful Activity’, and it relates the same with the individual or an association and means any action taken by such individual or such association as mentioned under clauses (1) to (3) of section 2(o) of the act.
An Association as Unlawful:
Chapter 2 of the act of 1967 deals with Unlawful Associations. Section 3 of the act provides the power to declare an association as unlawful. It gives such power to the union government under subsection 1 to declare any association as unlawful or has become unlawful through an official notification. While the union government declares such an association as unlawful, it should also have the responsibility to provide the grounds and any such particular which it deems to be the specific grounds for its declaration. Proviso to this clause is that the union government should specify or disclose the facts relating to its consideration of declaring the association as against the public interest. Section 8 of the act provides for notification of any place as used for unlawful association. It empowers the union government to notify any place as the place of an unlawful association. While doing so, the district magistrate of such a particular area should direct the officials for the listing of all movable properties in that place with two witnesses present while doing so. If unlawful movable properties are found in such location, then Magistrate shall order which would prohibit any person in using or entering such place.
Penalties under the act:
Chapter 3 and sections 10 to 14 of the act provides for penalties in case of any unlawful activities. As per section 10, a person shall be held liable for being part of unlawful activity or unlawful association and continues doing such activity along with the association, and then such person shall be liable for imprisonment which will not be less than 2 years and which will also include the fine. In due course of such activity with an association, if the person carries any arms and ammunitions which may cause serious threat or has caused the death of any person, then the punishment shall include the death sentence or imprisonment for life and may also include a fine. These are the penalties for a person who has indulged in unlawful activity or association.
Terrorist activities:
Chapter 4 and sections 23 of the act specify the definition of what amounts to a terrorist act and also deal with what are the different kinds of punishments available for different offences as mentioned under chapter 4 of the act of 1967. Section 22 has been subdivided and provided as sections 22A, 22B and 22C, and they specifically deal with different offences committed by the companies in general, offences against the societies and also against the trusts. They also accompany the punishment for the same.
On the other hand, sections 35 to 40 under chapter 6 of the act deals with the terrorists’ organizations similar to that of an unlawful association under chapter 3 of the act.
Recent Case:
There have been plenty of cases that were filed under various provisions under the act of 1967, and also many writ petitions have also been filed to challenge those charge sheets as they violate the fundamental rights provided under the constitution in an arbitrary manner. In late October 2021, in the case of Mukesh and Ors v. Union of India and Others case, a petition was filed seeking for quashing the definition of Unlawful activities as it results in vague meaning and violates three main articles, which are article 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
It may be concluded that many questions are yet to be answered by the Judiciary with respect to UAPA to avoid any further arbitrary exercise of powers.
Mukesh and others versus Union of India and others
