Why in news?
- Numerous activists were arrested recently on the grounds of their links with Naxalism under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
- Click here to know more about the provisions of the act.
What are the problems with the act?
- It sanctions the long-term deprivation of personal liberty even before an individual is found guilty.
- Also, finding of guilt or innocence itself entails an extraordinary amount of discretion.
- This discretion is vested both in the prosecution and in the trial judge who hears and decides the case.
What are the issues with its provisions?
- The act punishes both “unlawful activities” and “terrorist acts”, but the definitions tend to overlap.
- In Professor G.N. Saibaba case, six persons were sentenced to life imprisonment on charges against their membership of the banned CPI(M) and its “front organisation” (the Revolutionary Democratic Front).
- But the act does not define what a “front organisation” is, or what makes an organisation a “front” of a banned unlawful or terrorist group.
- Also, UAPA uses terms that overlap with each other-
- Section 20 criminalises “membership” of a terrorist organisation
- Section 38 uses the terms “associating” or “professing to be associated” with a terrorist organisation.
- Section 39 criminalises “support” to a terrorist organisation, which also includes organising a “meeting” to support the terrorist organisation.
- Thus, the UAPA creates a climate in which the focus shifts from individuals and crimes to groups and ideologies.
What are the related judicial pronouncements?
- The Supreme Court has held that the word “membership” has to be restricted to active incitement of violence.
- This implies that a mere possession of books or attendance at meetings will not be counted as an offence under the act.
- In Kabir Kala Manch case, the Bombay High Court rejected the argument that the “ideology” itself was contagious.
- Barring these judgements, the dominant approach remains the one that is antithetical to individual liberty.
What should be done?
- Provisions of UAPA suggest that our state has begun to relish the crackdown on dissent under the cover of combating terrorism.
- It is necessary that the rule of law would act as a protector of individual liberty.
- Also, a constraint upon state power is needed when the temptation to view dissent as treason is at its highest.
Source: The Hindu
