UAPA Act- UPSC Notes, Features, Arguments, Criticism

These UPSC Notes on the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act correspond to the UPSC Syllabus, and aspirants should refer to this material for General Studies Paper-II. Parliament recently amended the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, often known as the UAPA Act. It has created a lot of debate and is frequently mentioned in the press. Hence it’s relevant to the IAS Exam.

Prepare for UPSC Exam Now

Background Of UAPA Act

The UAPA Act was passed in 1967 by the then-Congress administration of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as an upgrade to the TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, which was left to lapse in 1995 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was abolished in 2004. Amendments were eventually made by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) governments of 2004, 2008, and 2013. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) serves as India’s Central Counter-Terrorism Law Enforcement Agency, as mandated by the NIA Act 2008.

Features Of The UAPA Act

Amendment to the treaty schedule: The Act defines terrorist activities as those conducted within the scope of any of the treaties specified in the Act’s Schedule. The Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997) and the Convention against the Taking of Hostages (1998) are among the nine treaties included on the Schedule (1979). The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism is added to the list by the Bill (2005).
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigation: Under the Act’s requirements, officials with the rank of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police or above can investigate cases. The Bill also allows NIA officials with the rank of Inspector or higher to conduct investigations.
National Investigation Agency (NIA) approval for property seizure: According to the Act, an investigating officer must acquire the Director-General of Police’s prior consent before seizing property that may be involved in terrorism. According to the Bill, if the inquiry is undertaken by a National Investigation Agency (NIA) official, the Director-General of the NIA must approve the seizure of such property.
They can punish both Indian and international nationals under the UAPA. Whether the offence is committed in a foreign country or India, the offenders face the same charges.
Among other things, the Act establishes particular procedures for dealing with terrorist acts. Its goal is to prevent unlawful activity associations in India effectively. Unlawful activity is defined as any act committed by a person or group with the intent of compromising India’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Who is capable of committing terrorism: According to the Act, if an organisation :(a) perform or participates in acts of terrorism, (b) prepares for terrorism, (c) supports terrorism, or (d) is otherwise involved in terrorism, the union government may declare or designate it as a terrorist organisation. The Bill also gives the government the authority to identify anyone as a terrorist for the same reasons.
The death sentence and life imprisonment are the most severe penalties under UAPA. The Act gives the central government ultimate jurisdiction, and if the Centre believes an action to be illegal, it can pronounce it as such in an Official Gazette.

Arguments In Support Of Amendments

The proposed amendments attempt to speed up the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and the designation of a person as a terrorist by international standards.
According to people familiar with the idea, the modifications will also empower the NIA to investigate cybercrime and incidents of human trafficking.
The NIA will be able to identify an individual suspected of having terrorist ties as a terrorist due to an amendment to Schedule 4 of the Act. In the current situation, only organisations were categorised as “terrorist organisations” before the amendment.
A rigorous law is essential to strengthen the investigating agencies and eradicate terrorism from this country.
Although the Hon’ble Home Minister indicated in the Lok Sabha that they could not utilise the legislation against any person, those who participate in terrorist operations against India’s security and sovereignty, including urban Maoists, would not be spared by the investigative authorities.
The bail and arrest provisions remain unchanged. As a result, no one’s fundamental rights will be violated. Furthermore, the investigating agency bears the burden of proof, not the accused.
The proposed modification to attach assets acquired via terrorist revenues is being presented to speed up the investigation of terror cases and does not violate federal standards.
Currently, Section 25 of the UAPA specifies that confiscation of property obtained by terrorism may only be done with the prior written agreement of the DGPs of the state where the property is located. However, the difficulty is that the terror suspect frequently owns assets in many states. In this situation, obtaining the authorisation of numerous DGPs becomes difficult, and this might cause a delay in the forfeiture procedure, allowing the accused to transfer the property to someone else.

Criticism

The Act gives the central government ultimate jurisdiction, and if the Centre judges an action to be illegal, it can proclaim it such through an Official Gazette.
The opposition expressed reservations over the revisions, claiming that they went against the country’s federal system, codified in the Indian Constitution.
There was no consultation before the legislation.
Designating someone as a terrorist involves major constitutional concerns and the possibility of abuse.
It violates the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” when an individual is labelled a “terrorist” before being convicted in a court of law. A mistaken designation will permanently harm a person’s reputation, career, and life.

Conclusion

While no one can deny the necessity for strict rules that show zero tolerance for terrorism, the government must remember its duties to protect basic rights when passing legislation on the issue.

FAQ’s

In India, is the UAPA Act bailable?

Because it provides little opportunity for judicial judgement, the clause makes granting bail almost difficult under UAPA. The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 in the case of Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali that courts must accept the state’s argument without considering its merits when granting bail.

Who was the first to propose the UAPA Act?

The BJP-led NDA government asserted that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Bill was submitted in Parliament to execute the 1963 Act’s provisions. However, the UAPA Act’s provisions violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Oliveboard_Content

Oliveboard is a learning & practice platform for premier entrance exams. We have helped over 1 crore users since 2012 with their Bank, SSC, Railways, Insurance, Teaching and other competitive Exams preparation.

Oliveboard Live Courses & Mock Test Series