Introduction:

The Parliament recently approved an amendment to the anti-terror law – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act to give powers to the central government to designate an individual as terrorist and seize his properties. Home Minister said a four-level scrutiny has been provided in the amendment and no human rights will be violated.

Body:

Key Features of the Bill:

• It empowers the government to designate individuals as terrorists if the person commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes terrorism or is otherwise involved in terrorism.
• This has been done as it is seen that when a terrorist organization is banned, its members form a new organization to spread terrorism.
• The bill also empowers the Director-General, National Investigation Agency (NIA) to grant approval of seizure or attachment of property when the case is being investigated by the agency.
• Under the existing Act, the investigating officer is required to obtain the prior approval of the Director General of Police (DGP) to seize properties that bear any connection to terrorism.
• It has been seen that many times a terror accused own properties in different states. In such cases, seeking approval of DGPs of different states becomes very difficult, and the delay caused by the same may enable the accused to transfer properties.
• It empowers the officers of the NIA — of the rank of Inspector or above, to investigate cases.
• The existing Act provides for investigation of cases to be conducted by officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police or above.
• No changes being made in arrest or bail provisions. Also, the provision that the burden of proof is on the investigating agency and not on the accused, has not been changed.
• The International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005) has also been added in the Second Schedule through the Amendment.

Impact on Fundamental rights:

• It allows the central government to name an individual as a terrorist if it “believes” without any formal judicial process, which is against the principles of natural justice.
• The name of such a person will be included in the ‘Fourth Schedule’ proposed to be added in the parent Act. The only statutory remedy available to such a person is to make an application before the Central Government for de-notification, which will be considered by a Review Committee constituted by the Government itself.
• An official designation as a terrorist will be akin to ‘civil death’ for a person, with social boycott, expulsion from job, hounding by media, and perhaps attack from self-proclaimed vigilante groups following.
• The Amendment poses threat to different viewpoints and goes against the freedom of speech and expression of an individual.
• The law could target minorities or a section of people thereby affecting their cultural rights.
• Provisions of the UAPA have an extremely wide ambit, which makes it possible to use them against not just criminals and terrorists, but even authors, academics, lawyers for alleged terrorists, and human rights activists.
• Indefinite Imprisonment without Trial: Even if the person is eventually acquitted of the charges, the delays in conducting judicial proceedings mean the case may only get heard several years after their arrest – failure to get bail means they have to spend the entire time in jail.
• The Act also interferes with the privacy and liberty of individuals contravening the provisions which protect against arbitrary or unlawful interference with a person’s privacy and home.
• The Act allows for searches, seizures and arrests based on the ‘personal knowledge’ of the police officers without a written validation from a superior judicial authority.

Liberty v/s National Security:

• This law is aimed at effective prevention of unlawful activities associations in India.
• Its main objective is to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India.
• But there must be a distinction between an individual and an organisation, and it must be kept in mind that the Constitution guarantees the former the right to life and liberty.
• Benjamin Franklin said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Way forward:

• There is a need to undertake structural changes to provide transparency in the proceedings to make UAPA act more accountable.
• Proper justification must be provided for the seizure of the properties and assets of an individual.
• The bill must ensure judicial solutions to the wrongly accused to safeguard the individual’s dignity, freedom and equality in the society.
• The government must also rethink regarding the issues pertaining to the rights of life and liberty, and to federalism.

Conclusion:

In civilised nations, from whom India has taken its Constitution and its laws, the criminal justice system is about the rights of the accused. That is also the foundation of our justice system. The very idea of the UAPA and the decision to start naming people terrorists without securing a conviction from a court of law, goes against the principles of natural justice.