Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Downloading material on an ideology not a UAPA offence: HC, 2024 */

2024-03-16T22:34:59Z

‎Downloading material on an ideology not a UAPA offence: HC, 2024

Jyoti: /* ‘Civil disturbance can’t be UAPA offence’: HC/ 2021 */

2024-03-08T20:58:28Z

‎‘Civil disturbance can’t be UAPA offence’: HC/ 2021

Jyoti: /* Misuse */

2024-01-06T08:52:47Z

‎Misuse

Jyoti: /* ‘Civil disturbance can’t be UAPA offence’: HC/ 2021 */

2023-03-31T19:55:45Z

‎‘Civil disturbance can’t be UAPA offence’: HC/ 2021

Jyoti: /* ‘Civil disturbance can’t be UAPA offence’: HC/ 2021 */

2022-11-15T13:58:51Z

‎‘Civil disturbance can’t be UAPA offence’: HC/ 2021

Jyoti: /* =Till 2021 June */

2021-07-16T13:23:20Z

‎=Till 2021 June

Jyoti: /* Arrests, convictions under UAPA */

2021-07-16T12:29:16Z

‎Arrests, convictions under UAPA

Jyoti: /* Amendment to UAPA */

2021-07-16T12:28:33Z

‎Amendment to UAPA

Jyoti: /* Court judgements */

2021-07-16T12:28:08Z

‎Court judgements

Jyoti: /* Arrests, convictions under UAPA */

2021-06-22T17:33:00Z

‎Arrests, convictions under UAPA

@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
-Nagpur: Nagpur bench of Bombay high court ruled Tuesday that simply downloading material about a specific ideology from the internet does not constitute an offence under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
+Nagpur: Nagpur bench of Bombay high court ruled that simply downloading material about a specific ideology from the internet does not constitute an offence under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
  In its verdict that acquitted wheelchair-bound former DU professor GN Saibaba and five others of charges related to terrorism and waging war against the country under five stringent sections of UAPA, a division bench comprising Judges Vinay Joshi and Valmiki Menezes said: “There should be specific evidence to connect the active role of the accused to particular incidents of violence and terrorism…”
 The judges clarified that indicting people over their choice to write or read communist or Maoist literature, readily available on internet, violates fundamental rights.
 [[Category:Crime|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 8 March 2024
Line 132:		Line 132:

	The dominant intention of the wrongdoer must be to commit a ‘terrorist act’… What, therefore, follows is that unlawful act of any other nature, including acts of arson and violence aimed at creating civil disturbance and law & order problems, which may be punishable under the ordinary law, would not come within the purview of Section 15(1) of the Act unless committed with the requisite intention —Gauhati HC The basic allegations levelled by the NIA are that Akhil Gogoi made provocative speeches, inciting the public to resort to violence and draw up a plan to set fire to houses belonging to people from the Bengali community.		The dominant intention of the wrongdoer must be to commit a ‘terrorist act’… What, therefore, follows is that unlawful act of any other nature, including acts of arson and violence aimed at creating civil disturbance and law & order problems, which may be punishable under the ordinary law, would not come within the purview of Section 15(1) of the Act unless committed with the requisite intention —Gauhati HC The basic allegations levelled by the NIA are that Akhil Gogoi made provocative speeches, inciting the public to resort to violence and draw up a plan to set fire to houses belonging to people from the Bengali community.
		+
		+	==Downloading material on an ideology not a UAPA offence: HC, 2024==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=07_03_2024_001_034_cap_TOI Vaibhav Ganjapure, March 7, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Nagpur: Nagpur bench of Bombay high court ruled Tuesday that simply downloading material about a specific ideology from the internet does not constitute an offence under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
		+
		+	In its verdict that acquitted wheelchair-bound former DU professor GN Saibaba and five others of charges related to terrorism and waging war against the country under five stringent sections of UAPA, a division bench comprising Judges Vinay Joshi and Valmiki Menezes said: “There should be specific evidence to connect the active role of the accused to particular incidents of violence and terrorism…”
		+
		+	The judges clarified that indicting people over their choice to write or read communist or Maoist literature, readily available on internet, violates fundamental rights.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIV]]
		+	[[Category:India\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIV]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIV]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVIT]]

	==Mere membership of a banned association is an offence: SC==		==Mere membership of a banned association is an offence: SC==

@@ Line 307: / Line 307: @@
 The case pertains to the arrest of five activists — Varavara Rao, Sudha Bharadwaj, Gautam Navlakha, Vernon Gonzalves and Arun Ferreira — who have been incarcerated since 2018 for their alleged role in the violence that occurred on January 1, 2018, the day of the bicentenary celebrations of the Bhima Koregaon battle that was fought between the Dalits who comprised the army of the East India Company and the Peshwas, who lost the battle. The violent clashes between the Dalits and the Marathas in 2018 claimed one life and left several injured.
-[[Category:Crime|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+=YEAR-WISE DEVELOPMENTS=
-UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
+==2022==
-[[Category:India|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=06_12_2023_016_016_cap_TOI  Bharti Jain, Dec 6, 2023: ''The Times of India'']
-UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+New Delhi : Of the total 1,005 cases registered countrywide under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in 2022, the maximum 371 cases were in J&K , followed by 167 in Manipur, 133 in Assam and 101 in UP , as per latest data on ‘Crime in India’ compiled by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).
-UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Pages with broken file links|UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+ Attacks by left-wing extremists last year totalled 224, while those by terrorists added up to 196, of which 126 were triggered by jihadi terrorists and 70 by ‘other terrorists’. The attacks by northeast insurgents, meanwhile, dipped to 26 from 41 in 2021, and were largely targeted at economic establishments owned by both government and the private sector (22).
-UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Crime|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+[[Category:Crime|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
 UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+[[Category:India|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
 UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
 UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Pages with broken file links|UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+[[Category:Pages with broken file links|UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
 UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 31 March 2023
Line 132:		Line 132:

	The dominant intention of the wrongdoer must be to commit a ‘terrorist act’… What, therefore, follows is that unlawful act of any other nature, including acts of arson and violence aimed at creating civil disturbance and law & order problems, which may be punishable under the ordinary law, would not come within the purview of Section 15(1) of the Act unless committed with the requisite intention —Gauhati HC The basic allegations levelled by the NIA are that Akhil Gogoi made provocative speeches, inciting the public to resort to violence and draw up a plan to set fire to houses belonging to people from the Bengali community.		The dominant intention of the wrongdoer must be to commit a ‘terrorist act’… What, therefore, follows is that unlawful act of any other nature, including acts of arson and violence aimed at creating civil disturbance and law & order problems, which may be punishable under the ordinary law, would not come within the purview of Section 15(1) of the Act unless committed with the requisite intention —Gauhati HC The basic allegations levelled by the NIA are that Akhil Gogoi made provocative speeches, inciting the public to resort to violence and draw up a plan to set fire to houses belonging to people from the Bengali community.
		+
		+	==Mere membership of a banned association is an offence: SC==
		+	[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/supreme-court-ruling-membership-unlawful-8516141/ Apurva Vishwanath, March 24, 2023: ''The Indian Express'']
		+
		+
		+	The Supreme Court ruled that even a mere membership of a banned association is sufficient to constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. The ruling lowers the bar for who can be charged under the stringent anti-terror law.
		+
		+	A three-judge bench headed by Justice MR Shah also overruled three key precedents on this aspect which had distinguished between active and passive membership of an unlawful association and the crucial difference between advocacy and incitement to violence.
		+
		+
		+	''' What is the ruling? '''
		+
		+	A three-judge bench comprising Justices MR Shah, CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol upheld the constitutional validity of Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA. While reading out the operative portion of the ruling, the bench said that the provision is in consonance with the fundamental right to free speech.
		+	In doing so, the SC also overruled earlier judgements that had read down Section 10(a)(i).
		+
		+	Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA reads: “Penalty for being member of an unlawful association, etc.—Where an association is declared unlawful by a notification issued under section 3 which has become effective under sub-section (3) of that section,—
		+
		+	(a) a person, who—
		+
		+	(i) is and continues to be a member of such association…”
		+
		+	The rest of Section 10(a) includes a person who takes part in meetings of such association; or contributes to, or receives or solicits any contribution for the purpose of, such association; or in any way assists the operations of such association.
		+
		+	''' What did the earlier rulings say? '''
		+
		+	In 2011, a two-judge bench in ‘Arup Bhuyan v State of Assam’, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra had said that a person’s association with an unlawful organisation must be an active “membership” which required actual incitement to violence or the act of committing violence.
		+
		+	Arup Bhuyan’s challenge was to similar provisions in the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) which are now repealed. However, UAPA, the anti-terror legislation that succeeded TADA, retained the same provision.
		+
		+	Several High Courts and even subsequent benches of the SC relied on the principle in the Arup Bhuyan case to hold that membership meant active membership and not just “mere membership” without any proof of incitement to violence.
		+
		+	Possession of literature or expression of sympathy to the cause without any real involvement in the crime can be counted as evidence of “membership” if the threshold is lower and does not require actual involvement.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]

	==Mere position of radical literature not an offence==		==Mere position of radical literature not an offence==

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:58, 15 November 2022
Line 132:		Line 132:

	The dominant intention of the wrongdoer must be to commit a ‘terrorist act’… What, therefore, follows is that unlawful act of any other nature, including acts of arson and violence aimed at creating civil disturbance and law & order problems, which may be punishable under the ordinary law, would not come within the purview of Section 15(1) of the Act unless committed with the requisite intention —Gauhati HC The basic allegations levelled by the NIA are that Akhil Gogoi made provocative speeches, inciting the public to resort to violence and draw up a plan to set fire to houses belonging to people from the Bengali community.		The dominant intention of the wrongdoer must be to commit a ‘terrorist act’… What, therefore, follows is that unlawful act of any other nature, including acts of arson and violence aimed at creating civil disturbance and law & order problems, which may be punishable under the ordinary law, would not come within the purview of Section 15(1) of the Act unless committed with the requisite intention —Gauhati HC The basic allegations levelled by the NIA are that Akhil Gogoi made provocative speeches, inciting the public to resort to violence and draw up a plan to set fire to houses belonging to people from the Bengali community.
		+
		+	==Mere position of radical literature not an offence==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=04_11_2022_011_017_cap_TOI Vineet Upadhyay, TNN, Nov 4, 2022: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi : A Delhi court has discharged a 26-year-old Kashmiri youth booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), observing that mere possession of jihadi literature having a particular religious philosophy would not amount to an offence unless there was material to show execution of such philosophy to commit terrorist acts.
		+
		+	But the court ordered framing of charges against nine others in the case that pertained to online propagation of Islamic State (IS) ideology.
		+
		+	Discharging Muzamil Hassan Bhat, principal district and sessions judge Dharmesh Sharma said the prosecution could not present any “iota ofevidence” to prima facie establish that the accused had been amember of any terrorist organisation, including the IS.
		+
		+	Nine others booked in the case by the NIA — Mushab Anwar, Rhees Rasheed, Mundadiguttu Sadanananda Marla Deepthi, Mohammad Waqar Lone, Mizha Siddeeque, Shifa Haris, Madesh Shanker, Ammar Abdul Rahiman and Obid Hamid Matta — will facecharges under UAPA and the IPC. The accused are from Kerala, Karnataka and Kashmir.
		+
		+	The court said the accused had been operating social media platforms as a “toolkit” for spreading the IS ideology to “allure, impress and radicalise” others and had been “furthering the provocative, violent and divisive ideology” of the terrorist group.
		+
		+	The accused, highly radicalised themselves, were in connection with IS operatives and were “purposely, actively disseminating information about its philosophy and ideology”, it further said. They were sharing “highly inflammatory, anti-national and secessionist propaganda” on social media platforms, the court noted.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]

	==SC, Delhi HC/ both 2021==		==SC, Delhi HC/ both 2021==

@@ Line 186: / Line 186: @@
 =Misuse=
-===Till 2021 June==
+==Till 2021 June==
 [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/the-numbers-that-point-to-misuse-of-uapa/articleshow/83708273.cms  Tejeesh N.S. Behl, June 21, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
 [[File: Convictions of UAPA cases, 2019-16.jpg|Convictions of UAPA cases, 2019-16 <br/> From: [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/the-numbers-that-point-to-misuse-of-uapa/articleshow/83708273.cms  Tejeesh N.S. Behl, June 21, 2021: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]
@@ Line 247: / Line 248: @@
 UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
 [[Category:Pages with broken file links|UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
 UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:29, 16 July 2021
Line 19:		Line 19:

	In reply to another question on arrests under UAPA, Reddy said 1,948 people were held under the law in 2019, as per NCRB data.		In reply to another question on arrests under UAPA, Reddy said 1,948 people were held under the law in 2019, as per NCRB data.
		+
		+	==Why UAPA cases fall flat in courts==
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-uapa-cases-fall-flat-in-courts/articleshow/77191240.cms Sanjeev Verma, June 28, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	[[File: UAPA cases, 2014-18.jpg\|UAPA cases, 2014-18 <br/> From: [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-uapa-cases-fall-flat-in-courts/articleshow/77191240.cms Sanjeev Verma, June 28, 2021: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	Just about a third of all cases registered under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, or UAPA, lead to conviction. In most cases, the prosecution fails to prove charges or, as in the latest case against environment advocacy group Fridays for Future, the anti-terrorism law is “mistakenly” invoked.
		+
		+	There has been a rise in the use of UAPA over the past few years. Delhi Police have booked students from Jawaharlal Nehru University and Jamia Millia Islamia against the backdrop of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests, Pinjra Tod activists after the Delhi riots and environment NGO Fridays for Future, which had been campaigning against the draft Environmental Impact Assessment notification, “inadvertently.” Those using VPN in Kashmir were booked under the law, as were those protesting in Assam against the Citizenship Amendment Act.
		+
		+	TOI looks at one state, Punjab, where many such cases have been registered under the Act but few have led to conviction. When TOI looked at 14 UAPA cases between August 2011 and March 2020, a pattern emerged — poor police investigation, weak prosecution and procedural lapses. While the trial drags on, those accused remain incarcerated for years. Bail provisions under the law are stringent and rights activists argue that the provision to designate an individual a terrorist without trial can be misused.
		+
		+	The suicide by Sangrur-based Sikh priest Lovepreet Singh (23) in Mohali on July 23, after he was questioned by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in a two-year-old UAPA case registered at Amritsar, has again brought to the fore the debate on use and misuse of this law.
		+
		+	''' Cases registered under UAPA '''
		+
		+	According to the National Crime Records Bureau report, the conviction rate under UAPA cases was 33.3% in 2016 across the country, 14.5% in 2015 and 27.3% in 2014. The conviction rate in the UAPA cases is not mentioned for the years 2017 and 2018 in the reports. In 2018, Assam recorded the highest number of 308 cases, followed by Manipur (289), Jammu and Kashmir (245), Jharkhand (137) and Uttar Pradesh (107) .
		+
		+	In Punjab, as per the data compiled by Ludhiana-based advocate Jaspal Singh Manjhpur, 94 cases were registered under UAPA against 370 persons in the state between 2009 and June this year. In 47 cases, trial courts either acquitted or discharged the accused. The remaining 47 are either pending in trial courts or have been appealed against in appellate courts. Manjhpur’s data shows at least nine UAPA cases have been registered in Punjab till June this year and 12 in 2019.
		+
		+	''' ''Here, there are five judgments that highlight why the law has been contentious. '' '''
		+
		+	''' STATE VS MANJIT SINGH ALIAS JIT '''
		+
		+	On August 29, 2011, Jalandhar fast track court acquitted Manjit, seven others in a case registered against them under UAPA at Bhogpur police station in Jalandhar on September 28, 2009. “From all this evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove any link of recoveries made from accused or transactions of money with any terrorist act or organisation. Simple statement of DSP Rajinder Singh Sohal that he received secret information is not sufficient to hold the accused having committed or attempted to have committed any such offence,” said the trial court.
		+
		+	''' STATE VS DALJIT SINGH BITTU '''
		+
		+	FIR was registered against Daljit Singh Bittu and four others under UAPA at Sarabha Nagar police station in Ludhiana on August 27, 2009. On July 22, 2014, Ludhiana sessions court noticed that the main allegations against the accused were that of receiving aid from foreign countries for unlawful activities and helping families of those involved in terrorist activities. “A legal right is given to accused in the Constitution to defend himself by appointing lawyers of choice. Lawyer fee is not an offence unless it is proven lawyer is also involved in unlawful activities,” court noticed while acquitting the accused.
		+
		+	''' WHAT EXPERTS SAY? '''
		+
		+	Supreme Court senior advocate Colin Gonsalves told TOI: “There is a misconception UAPA is inefficient because of low conviction rate. Truth is NIA or police are not interested because they know the evidence they produce will result in acquittal. Police use the law to keep people in jail for five years or more, because bail provision is strict. Unfortunately, judges have not seen through this.” The denial of bail resulting in jail for five years or more is 90%, he said. No Punjab Police officer was ready to come on record. On the conviction rate, Uttar Pradesh former police chief Prakash Singh said , “This means either police investigation is shoddy or prosecution is weak or judiciary takes so much time that these cases fall flat.”
		+
		+	''' STATE VS KOBAD GANDHY '''
		+
		+	This case was registered against Kobad Gandhy on January 1, 2010, under UAPA and Indian Penal Code at Sadar Patiala police station. Gandhy was acquitted on October 18, 2016. On January 23, 2010, the prosecution said that a police team near the main gate of Punjabi University at Patiala had received secret information that “Kobad Gandhy, who is the head of the activities of international, national parties” along with others including Manoj alias Raj (Ruhposh), member of CPI Maoist central committee, were involved in unlawful activities against the country. It was alleged that he was delivering a speech in the university to motivate people to join CPI (Maoist). Gandhy was arrested on February 20, 2010. The court observed: “In this case, neither any recovery was affected at the instance of accused. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was pertaining to a militant group or he was having any nexus with enemy countries, there is no evidence on record to show the accused was having any link with terrorist activities or militant group... Supreme Court... has held, that mere membership of a banned organisation cannot incriminate a person...”
		+
		+
		+	''' STATE VS NARINDER PAL SINGH '''
		+
		+	The case was registered under UAPA and Arms Act on Sept 15, 2013, at Purana Shalla police station in Gurdaspur against Gurpreet Singh and 11 others. The trial court on March 7, 2020, acquitted the accused. Prosecution submitted that on September 15, 2012, cops had been tipped off that Gurpreet and his associates had formed a gang for committing terrorist acts in Punjab and it was controlled by Harminder Singh and Harmeet Singh in Pakistan. As per police, this gang was planning to assassinate Yog Raj Sharma, state president of Shiv Sena who lived in Pathankot. The trial court observed: “So many disclosures were recorded to show that he (Gurpreet Singh) had kept concealed and got recovered the ammunition from different parts of the country between November 7 and 9, 2014. It is highly impossible for anyone to move such distances cities in three days. It shows prosecution only wants to implicate him by hook or crook.”
		+	''' STATE VS MAKHAN SINGH ALIAS GILL '''
		+
		+	Ludhiana police had on November 5, 2009, registered a case against Hoshiarpur resident Makhan Singh alias Gill at Machhiwara police station under UAPA, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. Makhan was acquitted by the Ludhiana trial court on March 24, 2015. He was accused of retaining explosive materials unlawfully and raising funds for terrorist acts along with possessing an AK-47 rifle with 20 live cartridges. The court was told that Makhan had confessed before the police that he brought the arms and ammunition from Pakistan, hid them in Ganganagar, Rajasthan, and could get them recovered. “Whereas, thereafter no recovery was effected from Ganganagar... this can not be termed as a confessional statement,” observed the court. Sanction under UAPA was to be accorded within seven working days of receipt of evidence by the IO, but it was granted after nine days. “So, it is no sanction,” court said.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]

	=Bail=		=Bail=

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 Shah assured that designation of an individual as terrorist would be subject to a four-stage scrutiny, even as Chidambaram termed the provision “unconstitutional” and “certain to be struck down by the courts” as it went against personal liberties. The home minister said outfits often circumvented a UAPA ban by rebranding.
-[[Category:Crime|U
+=Misuse=
-UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
+===Till 2021 June==
-[[Category:India|U
+[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/the-numbers-that-point-to-misuse-of-uapa/articleshow/83708273.cms  Tejeesh N.S. Behl, June 21, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
-UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
+[[File: Convictions of UAPA cases, 2019-16.jpg|Convictions of UAPA cases, 2019-16 <br/> From: [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/the-numbers-that-point-to-misuse-of-uapa/articleshow/83708273.cms  Tejeesh N.S. Behl, June 21, 2021: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|U
-UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Crime|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+[[File: Top 10 states based on total cases registered from 2015 to 2019.jpg|Top 10 states based on total cases registered from 2015 to 2019 <br/> From: [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/the-numbers-that-point-to-misuse-of-uapa/articleshow/83708273.cms  Tejeesh N.S. Behl, June 21, 2021: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]
-UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+Three college students – Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal and Asif Iqbal Tanha – who spent more than a year in jail after being accused by police of conspiring to create unrest, were granted bail last week after the Delhi high court flagged the "wanton use" of anti-terror law to suppress dissent.
-UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+Kalita and Narwal, both students of the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, are members of Pinjra Tod, a women's rights collective that was active in the protest against the citizenship amendment act.
-UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Pages with broken file links|UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
+They were arrested on May 23, 2020 and charged with rioting, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy and using criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty and the anti-terror law UAPA. Tanha, a student of Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia, was arrested on May 19 last year, accused of being a conspirator and instigator of the Delhi riots. He too was charged under UAPA.
-UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 22 June 2021
Line 19:		Line 19:

	In reply to another question on arrests under UAPA, Reddy said 1,948 people were held under the law in 2019, as per NCRB data.		In reply to another question on arrests under UAPA, Reddy said 1,948 people were held under the law in 2019, as per NCRB data.
		+
		+	=Bail=
		+	==Difficult to obtain==
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-people-being-slapped-with-uapa-are-not-getting-bail/articleshow/83601086.cms June 21, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	People who are guilty of crimes should face imprisonment, while the innocent should not be put behind bars. But what happens to those who have to wait for the law to decide if they are innocent or guilty? There's a system to ensure that they stick around to face justice, without being jailed as though they are guilty. It’s called bail.
		+
		+	That system also ensures that the accused will not cause further trouble; hamper the trial they’re about to face; or threaten or influence the witnesses in the trial. The court has to see if all these provisions are met and then grant bail, with these conditions in place. Even when the court considers the severity of the alleged offence, it does not automatically bar the possibility of bail.
		+
		+	Unfortunately, things have not been so straightforward for quite some while now. Legislations, especially those dealing with organised crime and economic offences, have started including severe restrictions on granting bail. Today the harshest restrictions have been applied in legislations dealing with terrorism. With the enforcement of these stringent legislations, we’ve also seen a rise in the misuse of them. As noted by the Supreme Court in 1994, when courts were inclined to grant bail in cases registered under ordinary criminal law, the investigating officers would invoke the anti-terror legislations like TADA, even though it was not applicable at all, just to circumvent the authority of the court to grant bail.
		+
		+
		+	The other development that has been taking place alongside this is that investigations and trials are taking a longer time to conclude. People who did not get bail can very well end up spending years without trial. In the public imagination and narrative, arrest and time spent in jail, even without a trial, have become equivalent to conviction, and bail, at times, equivalent to acquittal. Though anyone with more than a passing acquaintance of the criminal law knows that this is far from the truth, this idea of linking pre-trial bail with a likelihood of guilt or innocence has pervaded into the legislation and also judicial thinking. Many legislations now provide that bail should not be granted unless the court has good reasons to think that the accused is innocent.
		+
		+	What seems to be a minor change, one that a layperson may even think reasonable, but makes a world of difference when applied as a legal standard, is when a person accused of a crime applies to a court seeking bail. The court should not only see whether the accused will stick around for the trial and meet the other criteria mentioned above, but also weigh the case of the prosecution and the accused against each other, before either side has presented the full evidence in support of their stories, to see if the accused has a good chance of being acquitted eventually.
		+
		+	The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, however, has gone one step further and provided that if the court has reason to believe that if the accusation against the prosecution is prima facie true, bail should then not be granted. The standard here is not in weighing the stories of the prosecution and defence, sans evidence, against each other, but only in considering the prosecution version, and seeing if it sounds true.
		+	In the case of Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali, the Supreme Court in 2019 cancelled the bail of the Kashmiri businessman, accused in a terror funding case, saying NIA has collected ample evidence to show linkages between the Hurriyat leaders of Jammu and Kashmir and terror organisations as also their activities to wage war against India. The court said it will not go deeper into the quality of supporting material relied upon by the prosecution, but only form an opinion on broad probabilities. This made bail in UAPA cases even a more difficult proposition, because on broad probabilities, anything is possible.
		+
		+	In light of this, the bail applications of those accused in the Bhima Koregaon cases were considered. As a result, apart from those who obtained bail for a short period on medical grounds or for some grave personal exigency, the persons accused of offences under UAPA have not got bail.
		+
		+	There is no saying how long the trial in the Bhima Koregaon or other cases under UAPA will go on. The outcome of this whole situation, however, is that persons are jailed only on the basis of an accusation, which is tested only to see if it is a coherent narrative, and not whether it is supported and backed meaningfully by evidence. This will ensure that they end up being in jail for years together, before they stand a chance to prove their innocence. And in that time, some will lose their livelihoods, some will lose their loved ones, some will see their health and family lives deteriorate, and all will lose years from their public lives.
		+	The Delhi High Court June 15 order in the case of Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, who were accused in connection with the Delhi riots in 2020, works out a way within this stringent and complex legal framework to grant bail. The court, upon going through the chargesheet, notes that there is “complete lack of any specific, particularised, factual allegations, that is to say allegations other than those sought to be spun by mere grandiloquence”, which amount to a terrorist act or raising funds, conspiracy or act preparatory for a terrorist act, punishable under UAPA. Having found that UAPA does not apply in the case, the court then reverted back to the original principles for bail, that is, it relied upon the basic standard under normal criminal law, which we discussed right at the beginning of this article.
		+	This decision neither negates the stringent legislation nor changes the standard for bail in UAPA cases in any way, but rather, as the Supreme Court did in 1994, decries the misuse of UAPA. What really comes out of this judgement remains to be seen.
		+
		+	The writer is an advocate on record at the Supreme Court of India
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|U UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|UNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIAUNLAWFUL ACTVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA
		+	UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT: INDIA]]

	=Court judgements=		=Court judgements=