Question Description
Under the UAPA (Amendment) Act, the Union government of the day can designate any individual as a terrorist merely on suspicion. Further, it augments the powers of the National Investigation Agency and allows it to carry out search and seizure activities throughout the territory of India, without consulting or coordinating with the state government machinery. Where one section of the law shifts the burden of proof on the suspect individual instead of the prosecution, another allows the government to detain suspected terrorists for up to two years without having to prove that an offence has been committed.Centuries of jurisprudence and evolution of the justice system advise that security agencies must use "probable cause" as certified by a judicial officer as the prior standard for arrest or labelling of any individual. The bar of mere suspicion is unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dictates that an arrest without a warrant can be made only when an individual is "concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned."The Amendment makes the government a judge in its own cause, violating the very basic norm of impartiality in the dispensation of justice. While an accused can access constitutional courts for violations of fundamental rights, years could pass before justice is served. The lower bar of mere suspicion places unfettered power in the hands of government officials to detain any person who opposes government policies.This latest version the Act is reminiscent of the dreaded Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, the emergency era law grossly misused by Ms Indira Gandhi. MISA, which allowed for indefinite preventive detention, wiretapping, and search and seizure of property without a warrant, was used to suppress political dissent during the emergency.Most of the public opposition to the Amendment has been on grounds that this Amendment takes it much too far. In our opinion, this is a myopic view of the issue. The problem isnt the Amendment, so much as the Act itself. In truth, the UAPA has been a long and oft-abused tool for suppressing dissent. The problem is not limited to a particular government or political party. The UAPA was passed by Congress in 1967, and various administrations since then have used the Act to silence their opponents, it has become a tool of repression instead of a law that combats terrorism. In fact, two-thirds of the accused in the UAPA so far have been acquitted or discharged by the courts.We have a well-established criminal justice system the current provisions of which could effectively deal with any unlawful activity, including terrorism. In fact, all terror acts mentioned under Section 15 are already illegal under various laws. UAPA rests on faulty premises and only serves as yet another tool to roughshod over liberty and justice for all Indians.Q.Which of the following is the least likely to be a consequence of the Amendment to the UAPA?a)Increased detention of individuals speaking out against the Government’s policies.b)Unjust detention of individuals because of unfounded suspicion of Governments.c)Searches and seizures by the NIA when the state governments are not even aware of them.d)Increased detection on terrorist funding to terrorist groups done through shell companies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Under the UAPA (Amendment) Act, the Union government of the day can designate any individual as a terrorist merely on suspicion. Further, it augments the powers of the National Investigation Agency and allows it to carry out search and seizure activities throughout the territory of India, without consulting or coordinating with the state government machinery. Where one section of the law shifts the burden of proof on the suspect individual instead of the prosecution, another allows the government to detain suspected terrorists for up to two years without having to prove that an offence has been committed.Centuries of jurisprudence and evolution of the justice system advise that security agencies must use "probable cause" as certified by a judicial officer as the prior standard for arrest or labelling of any individual. The bar of mere suspicion is unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dictates that an arrest without a warrant can be made only when an individual is "concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned."The Amendment makes the government a judge in its own cause, violating the very basic norm of impartiality in the dispensation of justice. While an accused can access constitutional courts for violations of fundamental rights, years could pass before justice is served. The lower bar of mere suspicion places unfettered power in the hands of government officials to detain any person who opposes government policies.This latest version the Act is reminiscent of the dreaded Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, the emergency era law grossly misused by Ms Indira Gandhi. MISA, which allowed for indefinite preventive detention, wiretapping, and search and seizure of property without a warrant, was used to suppress political dissent during the emergency.Most of the public opposition to the Amendment has been on grounds that this Amendment takes it much too far. In our opinion, this is a myopic view of the issue. The problem isnt the Amendment, so much as the Act itself. In truth, the UAPA has been a long and oft-abused tool for suppressing dissent. The problem is not limited to a particular government or political party. The UAPA was passed by Congress in 1967, and various administrations since then have used the Act to silence their opponents, it has become a tool of repression instead of a law that combats terrorism. In fact, two-thirds of the accused in the UAPA so far have been acquitted or discharged by the courts.We have a well-established criminal justice system the current provisions of which could effectively deal with any unlawful activity, including terrorism. In fact, all terror acts mentioned under Section 15 are already illegal under various laws. UAPA rests on faulty premises and only serves as yet another tool to roughshod over liberty and justice for all Indians.Q.Which of the following is the least likely to be a consequence of the Amendment to the UAPA?a)Increased detention of individuals speaking out against the Government’s policies.b)Unjust detention of individuals because of unfounded suspicion of Governments.c)Searches and seizures by the NIA when the state governments are not even aware of them.d)Increased detection on terrorist funding to terrorist groups done through shell companies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Under the UAPA (Amendment) Act, the Union government of the day can designate any individual as a terrorist merely on suspicion. Further, it augments the powers of the National Investigation Agency and allows it to carry out search and seizure activities throughout the territory of India, without consulting or coordinating with the state government machinery. Where one section of the law shifts the burden of proof on the suspect individual instead of the prosecution, another allows the government to detain suspected terrorists for up to two years without having to prove that an offence has been committed.Centuries of jurisprudence and evolution of the justice system advise that security agencies must use "probable cause" as certified by a judicial officer as the prior standard for arrest or labelling of any individual. The bar of mere suspicion is unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dictates that an arrest without a warrant can be made only when an individual is "concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned."The Amendment makes the government a judge in its own cause, violating the very basic norm of impartiality in the dispensation of justice. While an accused can access constitutional courts for violations of fundamental rights, years could pass before justice is served. The lower bar of mere suspicion places unfettered power in the hands of government officials to detain any person who opposes government policies.This latest version the Act is reminiscent of the dreaded Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, the emergency era law grossly misused by Ms Indira Gandhi. MISA, which allowed for indefinite preventive detention, wiretapping, and search and seizure of property without a warrant, was used to suppress political dissent during the emergency.Most of the public opposition to the Amendment has been on grounds that this Amendment takes it much too far. In our opinion, this is a myopic view of the issue. The problem isnt the Amendment, so much as the Act itself. In truth, the UAPA has been a long and oft-abused tool for suppressing dissent. The problem is not limited to a particular government or political party. The UAPA was passed by Congress in 1967, and various administrations since then have used the Act to silence their opponents, it has become a tool of repression instead of a law that combats terrorism. In fact, two-thirds of the accused in the UAPA so far have been acquitted or discharged by the courts.We have a well-established criminal justice system the current provisions of which could effectively deal with any unlawful activity, including terrorism. In fact, all terror acts mentioned under Section 15 are already illegal under various laws. UAPA rests on faulty premises and only serves as yet another tool to roughshod over liberty and justice for all Indians.Q.Which of the following is the least likely to be a consequence of the Amendment to the UAPA?a)Increased detention of individuals speaking out against the Government’s policies.b)Unjust detention of individuals because of unfounded suspicion of Governments.c)Searches and seizures by the NIA when the state governments are not even aware of them.d)Increased detection on terrorist funding to terrorist groups done through shell companies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Under the UAPA (Amendment) Act, the Union government of the day can designate any individual as a terrorist merely on suspicion. Further, it augments the powers of the National Investigation Agency and allows it to carry out search and seizure activities throughout the territory of India, without consulting or coordinating with the state government machinery. Where one section of the law shifts the burden of proof on the suspect individual instead of the prosecution, another allows the government to detain suspected terrorists for up to two years without having to prove that an offence has been committed.Centuries of jurisprudence and evolution of the justice system advise that security agencies must use "probable cause" as certified by a judicial officer as the prior standard for arrest or labelling of any individual. The bar of mere suspicion is unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dictates that an arrest without a warrant can be made only when an individual is "concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned."The Amendment makes the government a judge in its own cause, violating the very basic norm of impartiality in the dispensation of justice. While an accused can access constitutional courts for violations of fundamental rights, years could pass before justice is served. The lower bar of mere suspicion places unfettered power in the hands of government officials to detain any person who opposes government policies.This latest version the Act is reminiscent of the dreaded Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, the emergency era law grossly misused by Ms Indira Gandhi. MISA, which allowed for indefinite preventive detention, wiretapping, and search and seizure of property without a warrant, was used to suppress political dissent during the emergency.Most of the public opposition to the Amendment has been on grounds that this Amendment takes it much too far. In our opinion, this is a myopic view of the issue. The problem isnt the Amendment, so much as the Act itself. In truth, the UAPA has been a long and oft-abused tool for suppressing dissent. The problem is not limited to a particular government or political party. The UAPA was passed by Congress in 1967, and various administrations since then have used the Act to silence their opponents, it has become a tool of repression instead of a law that combats terrorism. In fact, two-thirds of the accused in the UAPA so far have been acquitted or discharged by the courts.We have a well-established criminal justice system the current provisions of which could effectively deal with any unlawful activity, including terrorism. In fact, all terror acts mentioned under Section 15 are already illegal under various laws. UAPA rests on faulty premises and only serves as yet another tool to roughshod over liberty and justice for all Indians.Q.Which of the following is the least likely to be a consequence of the Amendment to the UAPA?a)Increased detention of individuals speaking out against the Government’s policies.b)Unjust detention of individuals because of unfounded suspicion of Governments.c)Searches and seizures by the NIA when the state governments are not even aware of them.d)Increased detection on terrorist funding to terrorist groups done through shell companies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Under the UAPA (Amendment) Act, the Union government of the day can designate any individual as a terrorist merely on suspicion. Further, it augments the powers of the National Investigation Agency and allows it to carry out search and seizure activities throughout the territory of India, without consulting or coordinating with the state government machinery. Where one section of the law shifts the burden of proof on the suspect individual instead of the prosecution, another allows the government to detain suspected terrorists for up to two years without having to prove that an offence has been committed.Centuries of jurisprudence and evolution of the justice system advise that security agencies must use "probable cause" as certified by a judicial officer as the prior standard for arrest or labelling of any individual. The bar of mere suspicion is unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dictates that an arrest without a warrant can be made only when an individual is "concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned."The Amendment makes the government a judge in its own cause, violating the very basic norm of impartiality in the dispensation of justice. While an accused can access constitutional courts for violations of fundamental rights, years could pass before justice is served. The lower bar of mere suspicion places unfettered power in the hands of government officials to detain any person who opposes government policies.This latest version the Act is reminiscent of the dreaded Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, the emergency era law grossly misused by Ms Indira Gandhi. MISA, which allowed for indefinite preventive detention, wiretapping, and search and seizure of property without a warrant, was used to suppress political dissent during the emergency.Most of the public opposition to the Amendment has been on grounds that this Amendment takes it much too far. In our opinion, this is a myopic view of the issue. The problem isnt the Amendment, so much as the Act itself. In truth, the UAPA has been a long and oft-abused tool for suppressing dissent. The problem is not limited to a particular government or political party. The UAPA was passed by Congress in 1967, and various administrations since then have used the Act to silence their opponents, it has become a tool of repression instead of a law that combats terrorism. In fact, two-thirds of the accused in the UAPA so far have been acquitted or discharged by the courts.We have a well-established criminal justice system the current provisions of which could effectively deal with any unlawful activity, including terrorism. In fact, all terror acts mentioned under Section 15 are already illegal under various laws. UAPA rests on faulty premises and only serves as yet another tool to roughshod over liberty and justice for all Indians.Q.Which of the following is the least likely to be a consequence of the Amendment to the UAPA?a)Increased detention of individuals speaking out against the Government’s policies.b)Unjust detention of individuals because of unfounded suspicion of Governments.c)Searches and seizures by the NIA when the state governments are not even aware of them.d)Increased detection on terrorist funding to terrorist groups done through shell companies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Under the UAPA (Amendment) Act, the Union government of the day can designate any individual as a terrorist merely on suspicion. Further, it augments the powers of the National Investigation Agency and allows it to carry out search and seizure activities throughout the territory of India, without consulting or coordinating with the state government machinery. Where one section of the law shifts the burden of proof on the suspect individual instead of the prosecution, another allows the government to detain suspected terrorists for up to two years without having to prove that an offence has been committed.Centuries of jurisprudence and evolution of the justice system advise that security agencies must use "probable cause" as certified by a judicial officer as the prior standard for arrest or labelling of any individual. The bar of mere suspicion is unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dictates that an arrest without a warrant can be made only when an individual is "concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned."The Amendment makes the government a judge in its own cause, violating the very basic norm of impartiality in the dispensation of justice. While an accused can access constitutional courts for violations of fundamental rights, years could pass before justice is served. The lower bar of mere suspicion places unfettered power in the hands of government officials to detain any person who opposes government policies.This latest version the Act is reminiscent of the dreaded Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, the emergency era law grossly misused by Ms Indira Gandhi. MISA, which allowed for indefinite preventive detention, wiretapping, and search and seizure of property without a warrant, was used to suppress political dissent during the emergency.Most of the public opposition to the Amendment has been on grounds that this Amendment takes it much too far. In our opinion, this is a myopic view of the issue. The problem isnt the Amendment, so much as the Act itself. In truth, the UAPA has been a long and oft-abused tool for suppressing dissent. The problem is not limited to a particular government or political party. The UAPA was passed by Congress in 1967, and various administrations since then have used the Act to silence their opponents, it has become a tool of repression instead of a law that combats terrorism. In fact, two-thirds of the accused in the UAPA so far have been acquitted or discharged by the courts.We have a well-established criminal justice system the current provisions of which could effectively deal with any unlawful activity, including terrorism. In fact, all terror acts mentioned under Section 15 are already illegal under various laws. UAPA rests on faulty premises and only serves as yet another tool to roughshod over liberty and justice for all Indians.Q.Which of the following is the least likely to be a consequence of the Amendment to the UAPA?a)Increased detention of individuals speaking out against the Government’s policies.b)Unjust detention of individuals because of unfounded suspicion of Governments.c)Searches and seizures by the NIA when the state governments are not even aware of them.d)Increased detection on terrorist funding to terrorist groups done through shell companies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Under the UAPA (Amendment) Act, the Union government of the day can designate any individual as a terrorist merely on suspicion. Further, it augments the powers of the National Investigation Agency and allows it to carry out search and seizure activities throughout the territory of India, without consulting or coordinating with the state government machinery. Where one section of the law shifts the burden of proof on the suspect individual instead of the prosecution, another allows the government to detain suspected terrorists for up to two years without having to prove that an offence has been committed.Centuries of jurisprudence and evolution of the justice system advise that security agencies must use "probable cause" as certified by a judicial officer as the prior standard for arrest or labelling of any individual. The bar of mere suspicion is unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dictates that an arrest without a warrant can be made only when an individual is "concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned."The Amendment makes the government a judge in its own cause, violating the very basic norm of impartiality in the dispensation of justice. While an accused can access constitutional courts for violations of fundamental rights, years could pass before justice is served. The lower bar of mere suspicion places unfettered power in the hands of government officials to detain any person who opposes government policies.This latest version the Act is reminiscent of the dreaded Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, the emergency era law grossly misused by Ms Indira Gandhi. MISA, which allowed for indefinite preventive detention, wiretapping, and search and seizure of property without a warrant, was used to suppress political dissent during the emergency.Most of the public opposition to the Amendment has been on grounds that this Amendment takes it much too far. In our opinion, this is a myopic view of the issue. The problem isnt the Amendment, so much as the Act itself. In truth, the UAPA has been a long and oft-abused tool for suppressing dissent. The problem is not limited to a particular government or political party. The UAPA was passed by Congress in 1967, and various administrations since then have used the Act to silence their opponents, it has become a tool of repression instead of a law that combats terrorism. In fact, two-thirds of the accused in the UAPA so far have been acquitted or discharged by the courts.We have a well-established criminal justice system the current provisions of which could effectively deal with any unlawful activity, including terrorism. In fact, all terror acts mentioned under Section 15 are already illegal under various laws. UAPA rests on faulty premises and only serves as yet another tool to roughshod over liberty and justice for all Indians.Q.Which of the following is the least likely to be a consequence of the Amendment to the UAPA?a)Increased detention of individuals speaking out against the Government’s policies.b)Unjust detention of individuals because of unfounded suspicion of Governments.c)Searches and seizures by the NIA when the state governments are not even aware of them.d)Increased detection on terrorist funding to terrorist groups done through shell companies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Under the UAPA (Amendment) Act, the Union government of the day can designate any individual as a terrorist merely on suspicion. Further, it augments the powers of the National Investigation Agency and allows it to carry out search and seizure activities throughout the territory of India, without consulting or coordinating with the state government machinery. Where one section of the law shifts the burden of proof on the suspect individual instead of the prosecution, another allows the government to detain suspected terrorists for up to two years without having to prove that an offence has been committed.Centuries of jurisprudence and evolution of the justice system advise that security agencies must use "probable cause" as certified by a judicial officer as the prior standard for arrest or labelling of any individual. The bar of mere suspicion is unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dictates that an arrest without a warrant can be made only when an individual is "concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned."The Amendment makes the government a judge in its own cause, violating the very basic norm of impartiality in the dispensation of justice. While an accused can access constitutional courts for violations of fundamental rights, years could pass before justice is served. The lower bar of mere suspicion places unfettered power in the hands of government officials to detain any person who opposes government policies.This latest version the Act is reminiscent of the dreaded Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, the emergency era law grossly misused by Ms Indira Gandhi. MISA, which allowed for indefinite preventive detention, wiretapping, and search and seizure of property without a warrant, was used to suppress political dissent during the emergency.Most of the public opposition to the Amendment has been on grounds that this Amendment takes it much too far. In our opinion, this is a myopic view of the issue. The problem isnt the Amendment, so much as the Act itself. In truth, the UAPA has been a long and oft-abused tool for suppressing dissent. The problem is not limited to a particular government or political party. The UAPA was passed by Congress in 1967, and various administrations since then have used the Act to silence their opponents, it has become a tool of repression instead of a law that combats terrorism. In fact, two-thirds of the accused in the UAPA so far have been acquitted or discharged by the courts.We have a well-established criminal justice system the current provisions of which could effectively deal with any unlawful activity, including terrorism. In fact, all terror acts mentioned under Section 15 are already illegal under various laws. UAPA rests on faulty premises and only serves as yet another tool to roughshod over liberty and justice for all Indians.Q.Which of the following is the least likely to be a consequence of the Amendment to the UAPA?a)Increased detention of individuals speaking out against the Government’s policies.b)Unjust detention of individuals because of unfounded suspicion of Governments.c)Searches and seizures by the NIA when the state governments are not even aware of them.d)Increased detection on terrorist funding to terrorist groups done through shell companies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Under the UAPA (Amendment) Act, the Union government of the day can designate any individual as a terrorist merely on suspicion. Further, it augments the powers of the National Investigation Agency and allows it to carry out search and seizure activities throughout the territory of India, without consulting or coordinating with the state government machinery. Where one section of the law shifts the burden of proof on the suspect individual instead of the prosecution, another allows the government to detain suspected terrorists for up to two years without having to prove that an offence has been committed.Centuries of jurisprudence and evolution of the justice system advise that security agencies must use "probable cause" as certified by a judicial officer as the prior standard for arrest or labelling of any individual. The bar of mere suspicion is unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dictates that an arrest without a warrant can be made only when an individual is "concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned."The Amendment makes the government a judge in its own cause, violating the very basic norm of impartiality in the dispensation of justice. While an accused can access constitutional courts for violations of fundamental rights, years could pass before justice is served. The lower bar of mere suspicion places unfettered power in the hands of government officials to detain any person who opposes government policies.This latest version the Act is reminiscent of the dreaded Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971, the emergency era law grossly misused by Ms Indira Gandhi. MISA, which allowed for indefinite preventive detention, wiretapping, and search and seizure of property without a warrant, was used to suppress political dissent during the emergency.Most of the public opposition to the Amendment has been on grounds that this Amendment takes it much too far. In our opinion, this is a myopic view of the issue. The problem isnt the Amendment, so much as the Act itself. In truth, the UAPA has been a long and oft-abused tool for suppressing dissent. The problem is not limited to a particular government or political party. The UAPA was passed by Congress in 1967, and various administrations since then have used the Act to silence their opponents, it has become a tool of repression instead of a law that combats terrorism. In fact, two-thirds of the accused in the UAPA so far have been acquitted or discharged by the courts.We have a well-established criminal justice system the current provisions of which could effectively deal with any unlawful activity, including terrorism. In fact, all terror acts mentioned under Section 15 are already illegal under various laws. UAPA rests on faulty premises and only serves as yet another tool to roughshod over liberty and justice for all Indians.Q.Which of the following is the least likely to be a consequence of the Amendment to the UAPA?a)Increased detention of individuals speaking out against the Government’s policies.b)Unjust detention of individuals because of unfounded suspicion of Governments.c)Searches and seizures by the NIA when the state governments are not even aware of them.d)Increased detection on terrorist funding to terrorist groups done through shell companies.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.