Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
π 1. Introduction
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was enacted to provide effective prevention of unlawful and terrorist activities in India. It is Indiaβs primary anti-terror law, aimed at:
Preventing activities that threaten sovereignty and integrity of India,
Banning organizations involved in terrorism,
Imposing stricter provisions for bail and investigation,
Empowering government to designate individuals and organizations as terrorists.
π 2. Key Features of the UAPA
πΉ Unlawful Activity [Section 2(o)]
Any action (spoken or written), association, or behavior that:
Disclaims or questions Indiaβs sovereignty,
Promotes secession, or
Disrupts territorial integrity.
πΉ Terrorist Act [Section 15]
Includes:
Use of violence to threaten national security,
Causing loss of life, damage to property, or disruption of essential services,
Use of explosives, firearms, etc.
πΉ Designating Individuals as Terrorists [Section 35 & 36]
Government can designate individuals or groups as terrorists without trial.
Their names are added to the First Schedule of the Act.
πΉ Bail Provisions [Section 43D(5)]
Bail is extremely difficult to obtain.
Court cannot grant bail if prima facie case exists against the accused.
πΉ Investigation Timeline
Up to 180 days for filing chargesheet (in contrast to 60/90 days under CrPC).
βοΈ 3. Important Case Laws on UAPA (Explained in Detail)
β 1. National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
Citation: (2019) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
Watali was accused of funding terrorist organizations in Kashmir. He applied for bail.
Held:
The Supreme Court denied bail and held that under Section 43D(5), courts must not evaluate evidence in detail at the bail stage. If prima facie evidence exists, bail must be rejected.
Significance:
Established a very high bar for bail under UAPA, making it almost impossible unless the prosecution case is completely baseless.
β 2. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam
Citation: (2011) 3 SCC 377
Facts:
Bhuyan was convicted under TADA for being a member of ULFA, a banned organization. Similar logic applies under UAPA.
Held:
The Court held that mere membership of a banned organization without active participation is not sufficient to convict a person.
Significance:
Important protection under UAPA β passive membership or ideology is not enough for conviction.
β 3. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb
Citation: (2021) 3 SCC 713
Facts:
Najeeb was in jail for over 5 years under UAPA. He sought bail due to inordinate delay in trial.
Held:
The Supreme Court granted regular bail, stating that constitutional courts can use powers under Article 21 to grant bail even when Section 43D(5) prohibits it.
Significance:
Major relief β long pre-trial detention can justify bail under Article 21, despite harsh UAPA provisions.
β 4. Gautam Navlakha v. NIA
Citation: (2021) 7 SCC 615
Facts:
Navlakha, a civil rights activist, was arrested in the Bhima Koregaon case under UAPA. He claimed illegal arrest and house arrest as custody.
Held:
The Court held that house arrest does not count as judicial custody for the purpose of calculating 90/180-day charge sheet limit under UAPA.
Significance:
Clarified procedural rules under UAPA; accused cannot claim house arrest as custody for statutory protection.
β 5. UAPA Case of Sudha Bharadwaj & Co-Accused
Court: Bombay High Court (2021)
Facts:
Sudha Bharadwaj was an activist arrested in the Bhima Koregaon case under UAPA. She spent over 3 years in jail without trial.
Held:
Granted default bail as NIA failed to file chargesheet within the extended period, and the special court was not competent to extend it.
Significance:
Affirmed procedural safeguards under CrPC still apply, even in UAPA β if chargesheet is delayed, default bail applies.
β 6. Syed Maqbool v. NIA
Court: Delhi High Court (2022)
Facts:
Accused under UAPA for alleged links with ISIS. Prosecution opposed bail citing Section 43D(5).
Held:
Bail was granted as prosecution failed to present prima facie evidence of direct involvement or intent.
Significance:
Shows that bail is possible under UAPA if prosecution's case is weak or circumstantial.
β **7. Asif Iqbal Tanha v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi High Court (2021)
Facts:
Tanha was a student activist arrested under UAPA in connection with Delhi riots. Accused of conspiracy.
Held:
Delhi HC granted bail, stating that protests and dissent, even if loud or uncomfortable, do not amount to terrorism.
Significance:
Landmark judgment distinguishing dissent from terrorism under UAPA. Emphasized freedom of expression and Article 19 rights.
π§ Judicial Principles from Case Laws
| Principle | Case Law | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Bail hard to obtain | Watali | Prima facie evidence enough to deny bail |
| Membership β Guilt | Arup Bhuyan | Active participation must be proven |
| Long jail β justice | Najeeb | Delay in trial can justify bail |
| House arrest β custody | Navlakha | Not counted for UAPA timelines |
| Default bail applies | Sudha Bharadwaj | Delayed chargesheet = bail |
| Protest β terrorism | Asif Iqbal Tanha | Dissent is not a criminal act |
π Criticism and Controversies
Misuse of the Law
Accused of being used against journalists, activists, and students.
Low Conviction Rate
Less than 3% conviction rate under UAPA shows misuse and overreach.
Violation of Article 21 & 19
Often used to suppress dissent, violating rights to life, liberty, and free speech.
Designation Without Trial
Naming individuals as "terrorists" without due process under Section 35 criticized as unconstitutional.
π Conclusion
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is one of the most powerful laws in India aimed at tackling terrorism and unlawful acts. However, its broad definitions, strict bail conditions, and alleged misuse raise concerns about human rights and constitutional protections.
The judiciary has occasionally stepped in to balance national security with civil liberties, but the scope for abuse remains, calling for judicial scrutiny and legislative review.
RELATED Blog
0 comments