The Delhi High Court granted bail to three student activists, who were arrested under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Court also ruled that “terrorist activity” cannot be broadly defined to include ordinary penal offences.
What is the case about?
The three accused were JNU students Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, and Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha.
They were arrested in May 2020 in connection with the riots in north east Delhi.
Communal clashes had broken out in north east Delhi on 24 February 2020 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters.
What did the Court observe?
Section 15 of the UAPA defines the phrase ‘terrorist act’ in a very wide and detailed manner.
The Court thus stressed on how terrorism was different even from conventional, heinous crime.
It reasoned that “the more stringent a penal provision, the more strictly it must be construed”.
This is a “sacrosanct principle of interpretation of penal provisions.”
This ensures that a person who was not covered by the legislative ambit does not get roped into a penal provision.
The Supreme Court itself, in the 1994 case of Kartar Singh v State of Punjab, flagged similar concerns.
It addressed the misuse of another anti-terror law, the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
What constitutes a terror activity then?
The UAPA is meant to deal with matters of profound impact on the ‘Defence of India’ and address threats to the very existence of our Nation.
So, the extent and reach of terrorist activity must travel beyond the effect of an ordinary crime.
It must not arise merely by causing disturbance of law and order or even public order.
It must be such that it travels beyond the capacity of the ordinary law enforcement agencies to deal with it under the ordinary penal law.
The Court clarified this, citing a 1992 SC ruling in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v State of Maharashtra.
What is the significance of the ruling?
This is perhaps the first instance of a court calling out alleged misuse of the UAPA.
UAPA relaxes timelines for the state to file chargesheets and has stringent conditions for bail.
So, it gives the state more powers compared to the Indian Penal Code.
But the Act is being used against individuals even in cases that do not necessarily fall in the category of “terrorism.”
A total of 1126 cases were registered under UAPA in 2019, a sharp rise from 897 in 2015.
It was frequently used against tribals in Chhattisgarh, those using social media through proxy servers in Jammu and Kashmir, and journalists in Manipur among others.
The Court ruling has now, in effect, raised the bar for the State to book an individual for terrorism under the UAPA.
Source: The Indian Express, The Hindu
Quick Fact
UAPA
The ‘terrorist act’ (including conspiracy and act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act) was brought within the purview of UAPA by an amendment made in 2004.
This came on the heels of Parliament repealing Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).
POTA’s precursor, the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) was repealed in 1995.
Section 15 of the UAPA defines “terrorist act” and it is punishable with imprisonment for a term of at least 5 years to life.
In case the terrorist act results in death, the punishment is death or imprisonment for life.
