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.
