UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)

Background of UAPA

1. The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 empowered Parliament to impose reasonable restrictions on Article 19 (Freedom of speech and expression) to protect sovereignty and integrity of the nation.
2. Based on this constitutional backing, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was enacted in 1967.
3. It was originally a law to deal with anti-national and secessionist movements in India.
4. Main Provision: The Central Government can ban an organisation if it supports or promotes ideas or actions that call for separating any part of India, or question India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, even through speeches, writings, or symbols.

Various Amendments of UAPA

1. 2004 Amendment:
   1. In 2004, after the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 was repealed due to allegations of misuse, terrorism was brought under UAPA (Chapter IV), making it an anti-terror law.
   2. It added:
      1. Definition of terrorist act (Section 15)
      2. Punishments for terrorism

• Criminalisation of conspiracy, recruitment, and training for terrorist activities

1. Terrorist acts now included:
   1. Use of explosives, firearms, lethal weapons, poisons, chemicals, or hazardous substances
   2. Intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India

• Acts intended to strike terror among the people in India or any foreign country

1. Abduction or kidnapping to coerce the Indian government or any foreign government

2. 2008 Amendment:
   1373. Following the 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attacks, the UAPA was significantly strengthened to address global and domestic terror threats and to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
   1374. Key Changes introduced:
         1. Inserted the phrase “by any other means” in Section 15, making the definition open-ended and extremely broad.
         2. This allowed acts not involving weapons or explosives to be treated as terrorist acts if intent is alleged.

• Extended custody:
  1. Police custody: 15 → 30 days
  2. Judicial custody: 90 → 180 days

1. Anticipatory bail barred
2. Bail denied if accusations are prima facie true (Section 43D(5))
3. Presumption of guilt introduced (Section 43E) if the accused is found in possession of arms or material linked to terrorism

• Creation of special courts for speedy trial of UAPA cases.

1. NIA (National Investigation Agency) was established to investigate the terror activities.
2. This amendment is widely criticised for enabling criminalisation of dissent.

3. 2012 Amendment
   1. The scope of terrorism was expanded to include “economic security of India”.
   2. Economic security was defined broadly to include Financial security, Food security, Energy security, Livelihood security and Ecological and environmental security.
   3. Production, smuggling, and circulation of counterfeit Indian currency were declared terrorist acts.
   4. Companies, trusts, and societies were brought under UAPA liability through Sections 22A, 22B, and 22C.
   5. Office-bearers of such entities could be held criminally liable unless they prove lack of knowledge.
   6. The period for which an organisation could be declared an unlawful association was increased from 2 years to 5 years.
4. 2019 Amendment
   1. The most recent amendment significantly expanded executive powers under UAPA.
   2. Individuals can be designated as terrorists, not just organisations.
   3. This can be done without prior conviction, raising concerns over presumption of innocence.
   4. National Investigation Agency (NIA) empowered to:
      1. Seize properties connected to terrorism without prior consent of state governments.
      2. Investigation powers expanded:
         1. Earlier: only officers of DSP/ACP rank
         2. Now: Inspector-rank NIA officers can investigate UAPA cases
      3. Added the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005) to the schedule of treaties.

Other Major Provisions of UAPA

1. Tribunal: The Central Government can set up an Unlawful Activities Prevention Tribunal, headed by a High Court judge, to confirm and adjudicate the ban on organisations involved in terrorist activities.
2. Punishments under UAPA: The Act prescribes graded punishments based on the severity of the terrorist act:
   1. Death penalty or life imprisonment: If the terrorist activity results in the death of any person.
   2. Imprisonment of 5 to 10 years with fine: For other terrorist acts such as organising terrorist camps, conspiracy, or recruitment for terrorism.
   3. Minimum 5 years’ imprisonment with fine: For acts that are preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act.

Limitations of UAPA

1. Very broad definitions of “unlawful activity” and “terrorist act” give wide discretion to authorities and can be misused.
2. Low conviction rate: NCRB data shows only 2–3% conviction, while more than 95% cases end in acquittal, indicating excessive and weak prosecutions.
   Strict bail provisions: Bail is extremely difficult, leading to long jail time before trial, making bail itself a form of punishment.
3. Long detention without charges: Accused persons can be kept in jail for up to 180 days without filing a chargesheet, affecting personal liberty under Article 21.
4. Burden of proof shifted to accused: The accused has to prove innocence, which goes against basic principles of criminal law.
5. Weak procedural safeguards: Government is not required to disclose evidence for declaring someone a terrorist. Courts find it difficult to conduct effective judicial review at the bail stage.

Conclusion

The UAPA has evolved from a narrow secession-control law (1967) into a powerful anti-terror statute through incremental and bipartisan amendments.

While the objective of national security is legitimate, the expansive definition of terrorism, stringent bail regime, and executive-heavy structure have raised serious concerns regarding civil liberties and misuse.

The denial of bail in cases like the Delhi riots reflects how Section 15 and Section 43D(5) operate together, prioritising state security over personal liberty.

A balanced reform is required to ensure that terrorism is punished without criminalising dissent.