In News:

=> Recently, Uttar Pradesh reported the highest number of arrests under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, followed by Jammu and Kashmir, and Manipur.

=> The number of persons arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the years 2019 and 2020 is 1,948 and 1,321 respectively as per the National Crime Record Bureau’s report.

=> Since 2016, 7,243 persons were arrested under UAPA and during the same period, 212 persons were convicted. As many as 286 cases ended in acquittal, 25 cases were abated and 42 cases were discharged by courts.

Unlawful Activities Prevention (UAPA) Act

Origin:

It was first promulgated in 1967 to target secessionist organisations and considered to be a predecessor of laws such as the (now repealed) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). It aims at effective prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. Unlawful activity refers to any action taken by an individual or association intended to disrupt the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.

Key Provisions:

Definition: Unlawful activity means any conduct which constitutes a crime or which contravenes any law whether such conduct occurred before or after the commencement of this Act and whether such conduct occurred in the Republic or elsewhere. The provisions of this Act apply also to— (a) citizens of India outside India; (b) persons in the service of the Government, wherever they may be; and (c) persons on ships and aircraft, registered in India, wherever they may be.

Punishment: Section 15 of the UAPA defines “terrorist act” and is punishable with imprisonment for a term of at least five years to life. In case the terrorist act results in death, the punishment is death or imprisonment for life. The Act assigns absolute power to the central government, by way of which if the Centre deems an activity as unlawful then it may, by way of an Official Gazette, declare it so. Both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged. It will be applicable to the offenders in the same manner even if the crime is committed on foreign land, outside India.

Chargesheet:  The investigating agency can file a charge sheet in a maximum of 180 days after the arrests and the duration can be extended further after intimating the court. UAPA cases are tried by special courts.

Bail related provisions : It is rare for an accused to get bail easily in a case under UAPA. The court can refuse bail if in its opinion the case is “prima facie” true. An accused cannot seek anticipatory bail and the period of investigation can be extended to 180 days from 90 days on the public prosecutor’s request — which means the accused has virtually no chance of getting bail by default.

The 2004 amendment: It added the “terrorist act" to the list of offences to ban organisations for terrorist activities, under which 34 outfits were banned. Till 2004, “unlawful" activities referred to actions related to secession and cession of territory.

Way Ahead:

=> A strong anti-terrorism law is needed in India, but its enforcement will always result in some draconian anomalies like the arrests of activists.

=> The existing UAPA does have effective provisions to combat terrorism (cognizable offence) but there are also some defects and demerits which needs to be addressed properly to make the law effective and efficient to prevent and combat terrorism.

=> The UAPA is a fairly harsh law drafted to deal with some harsh circumstances and with people spending more than a decade in jail before being acquitted, its potential for misuse has been realised.

=> The Act needs to be amended, in order to ensure a constitutional functionary who is independent of the Executive, be in charge of sanctions for prosecutions and investigations under this Act. Maybe a High Court Judge could be designated for this purpose.

=> Terrorism and unlawful activities are ones that always create political issues. If the Act has to work, its application must, at all times, look apolitical.

=> Higher standards of proof must be applied for conviction and there must be provisions like compensation to victims or punishment/enquiry against those who bring malicious complaints.

=> Judiciary needs to play an active role and provide early bail to the falsely accused and quash the baseless allegations at the early stage.