Editorial

Source: The Hindu

Introduction

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court granted bail to an individual accused of supporting the Islamic State (IS) and was charged under the anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The court clarified that his mere interest in the banned terrorist organization didn't amount to direct involvement.

What was the Background of Ammar Abdul Rahiman v. National Investigation Agency case?

• Amar Abdul Rahiman who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in August 2021. He was charged under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and UAPA.
• The NIA alleged that a scrutiny of Rahiman's mobile phone revealed that he had downloaded videos related to ISIS and brutal killings from Instagram using screen recorder option. Further his mobile contained photographs of terrorist promotion, ISIS flags etc., which established his radical mindset and association with ISIS.
• The Delhi High Court granted him bail and observed that mere presence of downloaded material on Rahiman's mobile device should not lead to no adverse inference.
• Additionally, the Court emphasized that Rahiman appeared to have merely downloaded and stored these contents without any evidence of attempts to share, broadcast, or transmit them to others.

What are the Laws Related to Terrorism in India ?

• There have been various laws and Acts passed by governments to combat terrorism such as:
  • Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: This Act allows the law enforcement agencies to act against individuals as well as organisations engaged in unlawful activities, inclusive of terrorism.
  • Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: The TADA Act provides stringent measures that deal specifically with terrorism. The act, surrounded by much controversy, ultimately lapsed in 1995.
  • Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002: As terrorism increased, another law, POTA, 2002, was passed. This provided law enforcement agencies with even more extensive powers. It was repealed in 2004 by UPA after concerns were raised regarding human rights violations.
  • The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: The NIA was established in 2008 to allow the setup of NIA at the central level that deals with counter terrorism activities.
  • The Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016: Recently, the Anti-Hijacking Act was passed to prevent the hijack of aircraft.

What is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?

• Originally enacted in 1967, the UAPA was amended to be modelled as an anti-terror law in 2004 and 2008.
• In August 2019, Parliament cleared the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019 to designate individuals as terrorists on certain grounds provided in the Act.
• To deal with terrorism related crimes, it deviates from ordinary legal procedures and creates an exceptional regime where constitutional safeguards of the accused are curtailed.
• It empowers the National Investigation Agency to investigate and prosecute cases under UAPA across the country.
• It provides for the death penalty and life imprisonment as the highest punishments for terrorist acts.
• It allows for the detention of suspects without charge or trial for up to 180 days, and for the denial of bail to the accused unless the court is satisfied that they are not guilty.
• It defines terrorism as any act that causes or intends to cause death or injury to any person, or damage or destruction to any property, or that threatens the unity, security or economic stability of India or any other country.

What is the Significant of UAPA?

• This is an important legislative tool in India aimed at combating terrorism and unlawful activities. Here are some arguments in favor of the UAPA Act:
  • Enhanced Security Measures: The UAPA provides law enforcement agencies with enhanced powers to prevent and investigate terrorist activities. It allows for the designation of individuals and organizations as terrorist entities, enabling authorities to take proactive measures to disrupt their operations and networks.
  • Deterrence: The stringent provisions of the UAPA Act serve as a deterrent against individuals and organizations engaging in terrorist activities. The threat of severe legal consequences acts as a disincentive for potential perpetrators, thereby helping to deter terrorist acts and maintain public safety.
  • Effective Prosecution: The UAPA strengthens the legal framework for prosecuting terrorists and individuals involved in unlawful activities. It provides for the admissibility of electronic evidence, surveillance, and other investigative techniques, facilitating the successful prosecution of cases related to terrorism and extremism.
  • International Cooperation: The UAPA aligns India's legal framework with international standards for combating terrorism, facilitating cooperation and information sharing with other countries in the global fight against terrorism. This enhances India's ability to address transnational terrorist threats and disrupt terrorist networks operating across borders.
  • Protecting National Security: In today's interconnected world, the threat of terrorism poses a significant challenge to national security. The UAPA Act equips law enforcement agencies with the necessary tools to safeguard the country against terrorist attacks and protect the lives and interests of its citizens.
  • Preventing Radicalization: The UAPA Act includes provisions for preventing radicalization and promoting deradicalization initiatives. By targeting individuals and organizations involved in promoting extremist ideologies, the Act helps prevent the spread of radicalization and mitigate the risk of terrorist recruitment and radicalization within communities.

What are the Challenges of UAPA?

• While the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) serves as a crucial tool in combating terrorism and unlawful activities, it also faces several challenges:
  • Civil Liberties Concerns: One of the primary criticisms of the UAPA is that its provisions are often perceived as draconian and can potentially infringe upon civil liberties and fundamental rights. Critics argue that the Act's broad definition of unlawful activities and expansive powers granted to law enforcement agencies may lead to arbitrary arrests, detention without trial, and violations of due process.
  • Misuse and Abuse of Powers: There are concerns about the misuse and abuse of powers under the UAPA by law enforcement agencies. Critics allege the Act has been used to target political dissidents, human rights activists, and marginalized communities to combat terrorism. This can undermine trust in the criminal justice system and erode public confidence in the rule of law.
  • Lack of Safeguards: While the UAPA includes certain safeguards such as judicial oversight and periodic review of detention orders, there are still gaps in the legal framework that may leave individuals vulnerable to abuse. The Act's provisions for preventive detention and extended periods of custody without bail raise concerns about the erosion of procedural safeguards and the presumption of innocence.
  • Chilling Effect on Free Speech: The broad definition of "unlawful activities" in the UAPA includes actions that threaten the sovereignty, integrity, or security of India, among other offenses. This can have a chilling effect on free speech, dissent, and peaceful activism, as individuals may fear being labeled as terrorists or extremists for expressing controversial or unpopular views.
  • Impact on Minority Communities: There are concerns that the UAPA disproportionately targets minority communities, including religious and ethnic minorities, leading to marginalization, stigmatization, and discrimination. The Act's provisions for profiling and surveillance based on religion, ethnicity, or political affiliation can exacerbate social tensions and contribute to a climate of fear and suspicion.
  • International Scrutiny: India's use of counterterrorism laws, including the UAPA, has drawn criticism from international human rights organizations and foreign governments. Allegations of human rights abuses, arbitrary arrests, and lack of accountability have raised concerns about India's commitment to upholding democratic values and respecting human rights standards.

What are the Landmark Cases on UAPA?

• In Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam (2011) the Supreme Court ruled that mere membership of a banned organisation will not incriminate a person. It can be done if a person resorts to violence or incites people to violence or does an act intended to create disorder.
• In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court said that uprisings against governmental and parliamentary actions are legitimate. Though such protests and assemblies are supposed to be peaceful and non-violent.
• In Union of India v. K A Najeeb (2021), the Supreme Court said that notwithstanding restrictions on bail under the UAPA, constitutional courts can still allow bail if they perceive that the accused’s fundamental rights have been violated.

Conclusion

The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) plays a crucial role in India's fight against terrorism, yet it remains a subject of debate due to its implications for individual freedoms. Striking a balance between security and civil liberties requires thoughtful amendments, a commitment to due process, and judicious use of the UAPA for a more effective counterterrorism strategy in India.