Role of Police in (UAPA)Unlawful

Prevention Activities Act, 1967

K A L PA N A
G N LU , L L M
 BACKGROUND
 UAPA was first introduced, during the British era, in the form of
the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908, aimed at curbing
dissent against the Crown.
 Post-independence, it remained in place, and in 1967, after wars
with Pakistan and China, it was expanded to grant extensive
powers for identifying unlawful associations and penalizing
those involved in activities supporting India’s secession.
 The National Integration Council formed a committee for
national integration and regionalization within the country. On the
recommendation of this very committee, the 16th Amendment
Act came into existence, wherein ‘reasonable restriction’ was
imposed on three essential fundamental rights, i.e freedom of
speech and expression, right to assemble, and right to form
association & unions. This gave birth to a new Act, the Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act, 1967 which was passed right after this
amendment
 Importance of UAPA, 1967
 The Unlawful Acts (Prevention) Act, 1967 aims to prevent illegal
activities in India. Its principal goal is to give authorities the power
to deal with acts that threaten India’s integrity and sovereignty.
The UAPA,1967 was enacted to make it easier to prevent certain
illegal activities by persons and organisations, as well as matters
related to them.
 UAPA was passed for the first time in 1967. The statute stems from
a recommendation made by a committee created by the National
Integration Council to look into the subject of ‘national integration
and regionalization’ in order to impose ‘appropriate constraints.’
The Constitution (16th Amendment ) Act of 1963 was passed in
response to the committee’s findings, imposing reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of some fundamental rights, including:
 Freedom of Speech and Expression.
 Right to assembly peacefully.
 Right to form associations and unions.
 Amendments to UAPA Act
2004 amendment act
The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was repealed by the
government in response to public outcry over its abuse, but the UAPA
was significantly changed. UAPA is frequently referred to as POTA 2.0
since Chapters IV, V, and VI, which address "punishment for terrorist
activities," were largely lifted from the POTA that was repealed.

2008 and 2012 amendment act

After the armed gunmen attacked Mumbai on November 26, 2008, an
additional amendment to the UAPA was suggested and approved on
December 17, 2008. In addition, the UAPA has provisions resembling
POTA and TADA on the maximum duration of police detention,
imprisonment without a charge sheet, and limitations on bail. The 2012
amendment to the UAPA broadened the definition of "terrorist act" to
include offenses that pose a threat to the nation's economic security.
 Before 2019 this act was applicable only to the organization but after 2019 both individuals and organizations
came under the ambit. Under Section 35 and 36 of Chapter VI - The government has been given power to declare
any group or any individual as a terrorist group or terrorist respectively if:
 Participates in acts of terrorism.
 Prepares or promoted terrorism
 .Involved in terrorism.

 The second change is in detention provisions, a person can be detained for 180 days under the UAPA act without
filling any charge sheet and this period can be extended further till then Right to Bail of the person cannot be
raised. In the normal criminal law system, under Section 167 of CrPC, now section 187 of BNSS allows a
maximum period of 90 days before the Right to Bail arises. However, Under Section 43-D of the UAPA act if the
investigation is not complete then any person can be detained for 180 days and further without a charge sheet
and the Right to Bail cannot arise.

 The third change related to the 4 th Schedule, through 2019 amendment 4 th Schedule is introduced in UAPA. This
gives power to the government to declare any individual as a terrorist and can add the name of the individual in
the 4th Schedule. The problem is there is no due process to add a name in the 4 th schedule. However, within 45
days the individual can make an appeal to the government for the removal of their name
How did UAPA become a terror law?
 The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act of 1987
(TADA) was India’s first anti-terror legislation. TADA was
created with the goal of defining and combating terrorist
activity. It was enacted in the aftermath of the
assassination of Indira Gandhi and terrorism in Punjab. The
Prime Minister at the time was Rajiv Gandhi.
 TADA’s application in the aftermath of the
1993 Bombay explosions and other terror operations drew harsh
criticism from human rights organisations and political parties.
 In 1995, TADA was allowed to expire.
 To combat terrorism, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee administration
enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2002.
 The Manmohan Singh government repealed POTA in 2004
before amending the UAPA to make it India’s primary terror
statute.
 Features of the UAPA, 1967
 According to Section 15 of the Act, the Central Government has
the authority to designate any person as a ‘terrorist’ if he or she
is discovered to be involved in any type of terror activity that is
likely to pose a danger to India’s sovereignty or integrity.
 Companies and organisations found to be involved in any type of
illegal or terrorist activity would be held liable under Section
22A of the Act.
 After obtaining approval from the designated authority of the
state where such an incident has occurred, the Act enables any
inspector rank officer of the National Investigation Agency to
investigate any type of unlawful activity as provided under
Chapters IV and VI of the Act.
 The Investigating Officer has also been given the authority to
conduct raids, and if a seizure is made, he must notify the
state’s designated officer within 48 hours after the raid.
 In the event that any property or cash is suspected of being
used for terrorist activities or by a terrorist organization, the
investigating agency has the authority to seize the cash or
property and deliver it to the designated officer within 48 hours.
 The individual may also appeal to the review committee,
which will be composed of retired/current judges and
secretaries of the Central Government.
 If an individual believes he or she has been wronged, he or
she may file a complaint with the high court or the
Supreme Court.
 The Act defines a terrorist act as one that occurs within the
scope of any of the treaties specified in the Act’s Schedule.
 The Schedule comprises nine treaties including
Convention for Suppression of Terrorists Bombing (1997),
Convention Against Taking of the Hostages (1979), and
International Convention for Suppression of Act of Nuclear
Terrorism
 Powers with the government: Under the Act, Central government can
declare a person or an organization as a terrorist/ terrorist organisation, if it/
he:
 commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism,

promotes terrorism, or is otherwise involved in terrorism.

 Government can impose all-India bans on associations which are declared

‘unlawful’ under the Act.

 Both Indian nationals and foreign nationals can be charged under the Act.

 Act holds offenders accountable in the same manner if crime is committed

on foreign land outside India.

 It provides for the death penalty and life imprisonment as the

highest punishments for terrorist acts.

 It allows for the detention of suspects without charge or trial for up

to 180 days, and for the denial of bail to the accused unless the court is
satisfied that they are not guilty.

 Investigating powers: Cases can be investigated by both State police

 Unlawful Activities definition
Unlawful activity “refers any action taken by individual or association
whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written,
or by signs to questions, disclaims, disrupts or is intended to disrupt
the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.” This act also
prohibits the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession
of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which provoke
any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or
secession.

Investigating Authorities
 Section 43 of the UAPA clarifies that is competent to investigate
the offence of terrorism specified under chapter IV and VI of the
Act. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) or police officer of
equivalent rank shall investigate the offence of terrorism and in
metropolitans areas it shall be investigated by a police officer not
below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP).
 Significance of UAPA in present time for India
 Uproot terrorism from India: Terrorists and insurgents continue to receive
material support and funds, UAPA provides law enforcement agencies with
enhanced powers to prevent and investigate terrorist activities. It allows for the
designation of individuals and organizations as terrorist entities, enabling
authorities to take proactive measures to disrupt their operations and
networks.
 Focus on individuals: Not designating individuals as terrorists, would give them
an opportunity to circumvent the law and they would simply gather under a
different name and keep up their terror activities.
(This is also important in the context of lone wolf attacks, which do not belong to
any organisation.)
 Quickens process of justice delivery by empowering officers in the rank of
Inspector to investigate cases and investigation has to be completed within 90
days.
 Reduces delay in attaching proceeds: Act allows seizure of property
connected with terrorism without taking approval of Director General of Police in
case investigation is conducted by an officer of National Investigation Agency
(NIA).
 Challenges Posed by the UAPA Act, 2019
1. Erosion of Fundamental Rights, including Article 14, 19(1)
(a), 21: The Act denies individuals labeled as terrorists the
opportunity to present their case before arrest, allowing detention
for up to 180 days without a formal charge sheet, thus
significantly infringing upon their fundamental rights.
2. UAPA being used against journalists: In recent times, there
is a trend of UAPA being slapped against journalist which is
contrary to the fundamental rights enjoyed by press in India (News
Click case)
3. Contrary to the Principle of ‘Innocent Until Proven
Guilty’: The Act contradicts universally recognized principles by
not upholding the right to be considered innocent until proven
guilty, which is a fundamental tenet of justice.
4. Excessive Discretionary Authority: There is a lack of
objective criteria for classifying individuals as terrorists grants the
government almost unchecked authority to designate anyone as a
terrorist, posing a significant risk of misuse of power.
5. Ambiguous and Unclear Definitions: Vagueness in definitions of terms
like “terrorism” and its broad definition of ‘unlawful activity’ create confusion
and leave room for differing interpretations, impacting the Act’s effectiveness and
fairness.
6.Concerns in the Appeals Process: While the Act provides for appeals, the
establishment of a government-appointed three-member review committee, including
serving bureaucrats, raises concerns about the independence and fairness of the
appeals process.
7.Rise in number of cases: There has been a drastic rise in UAPA cases in recent
years. As per a report of the National Crime Bureau Records, 814 UAPA cases were filed
in 2021, while 1,005 cases under the UAPA were filed in 2022.
8.Low Conviction Rates: Less than 3% of cases registered under the UAPA Act
between 2016 and 2020 (PUCL report) resulted in convictions underscores significant
challenges in effectively prosecuting cases under the Act, although this is less
immediate but still a notable issue.
9.Criticism of government being considered as terrorist act: Over the
period, the critics of government and its policies are also being prosecuted under UAPA.
(Peerzada Shah Fahad v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. (2023))
 CONCLUSION
1. Use the Law as the Last Resort: Ensure that the UAPA law is
used only as a last resort and not as a first response to deal with
security threats or social unrest.
 The UAPA law should not be used to suppress legitimate dissent,

criticism, or opposition, or to harass, intimidate, or silence civil society

actors, journalists, academics, or human rights defenders.
 The government should respect and protect the fundamental

rights and freedoms of all citizens, and use dialogue, negotiation, and
reconciliation as the preferred means to resolve conflicts and grievances.
2. Need for Amendment: There is a need to refine the definition of
"unlawful activity" and "terrorist act" to specifically exclude constitutionally
protected activities like peaceful protests, differing viewpoints, and
ideological expressions.
 The existing definitions are overly ambiguous, wide-ranging, and

open to interpretation, allowing the government to potentially

criminalize any action it finds objectionable or menacing.
 Dissent is a crucial aspect of the freedom of speech as outlined in Article

19(1)(a) as established in the case of Maqbool Fida Hussain v.

Rajkumar Pandey, 2008.
3. Non-Biased Review Mechanism: Create a system for reviewing
government decisions to ban or label certain groups or individuals as
unlawful or terrorist. This system should be independent and impartial,
allowing for monitoring and challenging of the government's actions.
 The current system is not sufficient, as the government is not required to
justify its decisions or provide evidence, and the review tribunal is often
influenced by the government.
4. Presumption of Innocence: Section 43D(5) of the act could be
amended to explicitly emphasize the presumption of innocence until
proven guilty.
 This would ensure that the prosecution bears the burden of proof throughout the
bail procedure and the accused is not required to establish their innocence.
5. Clearer Grounds for Denial of Bail: The provision could be changed
to establish specific and well-defined grounds for denying bail.
 This would prevent bail from being denied arbitrarily and provide clarity
to the courts and the accused regarding the situations in which bail can be
denied.