Introduction
“Anti-Terrorism is a fight between Justice and Evil, Civilisation and Savagery.” Considering this ideology, they made a significant modification to Section 35. This involved adding a provision for individuals who are or will be potential terrorists, engaging in activities that increase terrorism. The Union government passed amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act (UAPA) in 2019. This allows the designation of any organization or individual as terrorists if they:
- commit or participate in the acts of terrorism;
- prepare for acts of terror;
- promote terrorism, or
- individuals otherwise involved in terrorism.
After this amendment,
Several questions have been raised on the constitutionality of this amendment, questioning whether the UAPA Act 2019 is manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires the constitution of India.
State’s obligation towards the citizens
The group of individuals itself forms an organization. Earlier, authorities could declare only an organization as a terrorist organization. Once an organization fulfilled the grounds mentioned under Section 35 of the UAPA, authorities registered it as a terrorist organization. However, this later resulted in the formation of a new terrorist organization by the same group of people. This process degraded and limited the whole purpose of implementing the UAPA to prevent terrorism in India. The offenders took advantage of this loophole in the act to use it against the citizens of India itself.
Remedies Available for the accused under UAPA
Now after the amendment, any person or organization charged u/s 35, possesses several remedies too which are as follows:
- firstly, he or she or it may apply for denotification via application to the central government requesting to de-notify his or her or its name from the list of terrorists;
- Secondly, if the Central Government rejects the application after due consideration, the applicant (he/she/it) may approach to the Review Committee, constituted for reviewing the decisions related to the UAPA Act, within 1 month from the date of such refusal of an application for denotification;
- Thirdly, the aggrieved party may approach the Hon’ble High Court through an appeal against the verdict of the Review Committee; and
- Fourthly, may appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court if not satisfied by the judgment of the High Court concerned.
Further, as per Section 37(3) of the act, the Chairman of the Review Committee shall be a sitting or retired judge of the High Court, hence it leaves no home for the Central Government to interfere and perform its unlimited arbitrary powers in the matter of offenses under this act. The present central government claims that the UAPA Act 2019 is neither manifestly arbitrary nor ultra vires the constitution of India.
Controversial situations
One major criticism of this Amendment Act, 2019 is that it makes the offense non-bailable, unilaterally categorizing a person as a terrorist without providing them a lawful opportunity to be heard. This goes against the principles of the Doctrine of Natural Justice and Audi Alteram Partem (listen to the other side). In Dev Dutt v. Union of India AIR 2008, it was held that “Any administrative having civil consequence must be made in consonance with natural justice”.
Furthermore, concerning the petitions of Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India 2019 and Association for Protection of Civil Rights v. Union of India 1997, the accused were registered on the same grounds, that an individual may be identified as a terrorist without any judicial scrutiny even before the commencement of a trial, thus they have challenged this Amendment Act as being violative of the Right to Equality enshrined under article 14, Free Speech under Article 19 and Life & Liberty under article 21 of the Indian constitution.
Conclusion
As an anti-terrorist legislation, it plays a vital role. It is instrumental in maintaining the security and integrity of the nation. I’s purpose is to prevent and control terrorism. When authorities charge any individual or organization under this Act for any offense, given the recent amendments, obtaining bail and release from confinement becomes almost impossible. This situation automatically creates chaos and disharmony among the citizens. Therefore, scrutinizing such an act is imperative. To avoid curtailing or infringing upon the civil, political, and legal rights of individuals, one should conduct this scrutiny. It must undergo regular judicial review for the sound delivery of justice.
