GS3 (Mains Answer Writing): Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) 1967 | UPSC Mains: Internal Security & Disaster Management PDF Download

Indian Government has recently strengthened the anti-terrorism laws by amending the unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 and the NIA act. Analyze the changes in the context of prevailing security environment while discussing the scope and reasons for opposing the UAPA by human rights organizations (MAINS GS3 2019)

Introduction: The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019 amends the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Act provides special procedures to deal with terrorist activities. The National Investigation Agency (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was introduced in Lok Sabha by amends the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008.
The salient features of the UAPA amendment act are as follows: 

• Declaration of an organization as terrorist: Under the Act, the central government may designate an organisation as a terrorist organisation if it: 
  • commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
  • prepares for terrorism,
  • promotes terrorism, or
  • is otherwise involved in terrorism. 
• Declaration of an individual as terrorist: The Bill additionally empowers the government to designate individuals as terrorists on the same grounds. 
• Approval for seizure of property by NIA: Under the Act, an investigating officer is required to obtain the prior approval of the Director General of Police to seize properties that may be connected with terrorism. The Bill adds that if the investigation is conducted by an officer of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the approval of the Director General of NIA would be required for seizure of such property. 
• Investigation by NIA: Under the Act, investigation of cases may be conducted by officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police or above. The Bill additionally empowers the officers of the NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above, to investigate cases. 
• Insertion to schedule of treaties: The Act defines terrorist acts to include acts committed within the scope of any of the treaties listed in a schedule to the Act. The Schedule lists nine treaties, including the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997), and the Convention against Taking of Hostages (1979). The Bill adds another treaty to the list. This is the International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005). 

The salient features of NIA amendment are as follows: 

• The Act provides for a national-level agency to investigate and prosecute offences listed in a schedule (scheduled offences). Further, the Act allows for creation of Special Courts for the trial of scheduled offences. 
• Scheduled offences: The schedule to the Act specifies a list of offences which are to be investigated and prosecuted by the NIA. These include offences under Acts such as the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. 
• The Bill seeks to allow the NIA to investigate the following offences, in addition: 
  • human trafficking, 
  • offences related to counterfeit currency or bank notes, 
  • manufacture or sale of prohibited arms, 
  • cyber-terrorism, and 
  • offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 
• Special Courts: The Act allows the central government to constitute Special Courts for the trial of scheduled offences. The Bill amends this to state that the central government may designate Sessions Courts as Special Courts for the trial of scheduled offences. 
• Jurisdiction of the NIA: The Act provides for the creation of the NIA to investigate and prosecute offences specified in the schedule. The officers of the NIA have the same powers as other police officers in relation to investigation of such offences, across India. 

Reasons why human rights groups are opposing: 

• The amendments infringed upon the fundamental right to reputation and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, without substantive and procedural due process. 
• Notifying an individual as a terrorist without giving him an opportunity of being heard violates the individual’s right to reputation and dignity, which is a facet of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• A person who is designated a terrorist, even if he is de-notified subsequently, faces a lifelong stigma and this tarnishes his reputation for life. 
• An official designation as a terrorist will be akin to ‘civil death’ for a person, with social boycott, job loss, and other lifelong disabilities. 
• Section 35 of the amended Act did not mention when a person could be designated as a terrorist. 
• Section 36: A person is never informed of the grounds of his notification, so the remedy of challenging his notification under section 36, as provided for in the Act is practically unusable. 
• Designating a person as a terrorist on a mere belief of the government is arbitrary and excessive. 
• A law declaring a person as a terrorist without even providing an efficacious remedy to challenge his notification can be abused and misused. 
• Critics of the recent amendments contend that Sections 35 and 36 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act is unconstitutional and void as those violated the fundamental rights of individuals. 

Merits of the Act: 

• Law can be justified as the provision to name individuals as terrorists (till now only organisations were designated), based on the argument that when terror organisations are banned, those running it “open a new shop” and carry on their activities as before. 
• Terrorism is a serious problem. USA, Pakistan, China, Israel, European Union, United Nations Security Council name individuals involved in terror activities, but India will have it now. 
• Checks and balances provided. There are four conditions that can lead to an individual provided. There are four conditions that can lead to an individual being named a terrorist — committing or participating in a terror act, preparing for a terror act, promoting terrorism, and being involved in terrorist activities. 

Conclusion
There is a need to balance human rights, fundamental rights and national security. A strong law is required to deal with the terror threat. But at the same time, there should be due process of law whereby an innocent has rights to defend himself.

Topics Covered- UAPA