Context:
Supreme Court Denies Bail in UAPA Case Recently, the Supreme Court rejected bail for an accused linked to an alleged Khalistan module, asserting that the principle of ‘bail is rule, jail is the exception’ does not apply under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
Relevance:
GS II: Polity and Governance
Dimensions of the Article:
- Evolution of Bail Provisions under UAPA: Navigating Legal Shifts
- The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
Evolution of Bail Provisions under UAPA: Navigating Legal Shifts
2008 Amendment Act:
- Introduced Section 43D (5), requiring the court to deny bail if there were reasonable grounds to believe the case was prima facie true.
- Shifted the burden onto the accused to prove the unreasonableness of considering accusations as prima facie true, altering the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
2016 – Angela Harish Sontakke Case:
- Despite Section 43D (5), the judiciary granted bail, emphasizing the balance needed between the alleged offence and the accused’s time in jail.
2019 – NIA v Zahoor Amhad Shah Watali:
- Narrow interpretation of Section 43D (5), requiring the court to accept NIA’s version without delving into case merits, making bail harder after NIA frames charges.
2021 – Union of India v K.A. Najeeb:
- Supreme Court highlighted the possibility of granting bail based on prolonged incarceration’s violation of Article 21 rights.
2021 – State of NCT of Delhi v Devangana Kalita:
- Delhi High Court separated evidence from NIA inferences, granting bail due to NIA’s failure to establish a prima facie case.
2023 – Vernon Gonsalves v State of Maharashtra:
- Supreme Court diverged from Watali ruling, emphasizing the need for evidence analysis in the “prima facie true” test for bail.
2023 (Recent Case):
- A two-judge bench denied bail, following the Watali precedent, raising questions about consistency in applying UAPA bail provisions.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
- The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967 is an upgrade on the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act TADA (which lapsed in 1995) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act – POTA (which was repealed in 2004).
- Its main objective was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India.
- The National Integration Council appointed a Committee on National Integration and Regionalisation to look into, the aspect of putting reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India.
- The agenda of the NIC limited itself to communalism, casteism and regionalism and not terrorism.
- However, the provisions of the UAPA Act contravenes the requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Unlawful Activities Prevention Amendment Bill, 2019
- The original Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, dealt with “unlawful” acts related to secession; anti-terror provisions were introduced in 2004.
- It provides special procedures to deal with terrorist activities, among other things.
Key Provisions of the Amendment
- The Bill amends the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and additionally empowers the government to designate individuals as terrorists on the same grounds.
- Under the Act, the central government may designate an organisation as a terrorist organisation if it:
- commits or participates in acts of terrorism
- prepares for terrorism
- promotes terrorism
- is otherwise involved in terrorism
- The word “terror” or “terrorist” is not defined.
- However, a “terrorist act” is defined as any act committed with the intent –
- to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India
- to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country
- The central government may designate an individual as a terrorist through a notification in the official gazette.
- The Bill empowers the officers of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), of the rank of Inspector or above, to investigate cases.
- Under the Act, an investigating officer can seize properties that may be connected with terrorism with prior approval of the Director General of Police.
Issues with UAPA
- UAPA gives the state authority vague powers to detain and arrest individuals who it believes to be indulged in terrorist activities. Thus, the state gives itself more powers vis-a-vis individual liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- UAPA empowers the ruling government, under the garb of curbing terrorism, to impose indirect restriction on right of dissent which is detrimental for a developing democratic society. The right of dissent is a part and parcel of fundamental right to free speech and expression and therefore, cannot be abridged in any circumstances except for mentioned in Article 19 (2).
- UAPA can also be thought of to go against the federal structure since it neglects the authority of state police in terrorism cases, given that ‘Police’ is a state subject under 7th schedule of Indian Constitution.
-Source: The Hindu
