Unlawful Activities Prevention Act Invoked Against NewsClick

Context:  

• This article is based on an Editorial “What UAPA sections have been invoked against NewsClick” which was published in the Indian Express. Recently, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act or UAPA has been invoked against the news portal “NewsClick”, which is facing allegations of receiving illegal funding from China aimed at propagating Chinese propaganda, routed through the United States.
• The Enforcement Directorate had accused the company of money laundering, claiming that the portal received ₹77 crore as foreign remittance between the years 2018-21

What is the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967?

• Origin: Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was first promulgated in 1967 to target secessionist organizations and considered to be a predecessor of laws such as the (now repealed) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).
• Aim: Effective prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. 
  • Unlawful activity refers to any action taken by an individual or association intended to disrupt the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.
• Declaration by: The Act assigns absolute power to the central government, by way of which if the Centre deems an activity as unlawful then it may, by way of an Official Gazette, declare it so.

What are the key Provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967?

• Criteria to Define: Unlawful Activities Prevention Act defines terrorist acts to include acts committed within the scope of any of the nine treaties listed in a schedule to the Act. Some of the treaties include:
  • Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997)
  • Convention against Taking of Hostages (1979)
  • Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005)
• Punishment: Death penalty and life imprisonment. 
• Charged on: Both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged.
• Applicability: It will be applicable to the offenders in the same manner even if the crime is committed on foreign land, outside India.
• Time Frame for Charge-sheet: The investigating agency can file a charge sheet in a maximum of 180 days after the arrests and the duration can be extended further after intimating the court.
• Share of Information: Personal/financial information of an individual designated as a terrorist can be shared with various Western agencies.
• Seizure of Property: It allows for the seizure of properties that may be connected with terrorism.

Also read: FICCI’s Insights On Illicit Trade In India 

What are the amendments made in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967?

• 2004 Amendment: It added the “terrorist act” to the list of offenses to ban organizations for terrorist activities, under which 34 outfits were banned.
  • Till 2004, “unlawful” activities referred to actions related to secession and cession of territory.
• 2019 Amendment: It empowers to designate individuals as terrorists on certain grounds provided in the Act, only organizations could be designated earlier.
• • Power to Approval: The Act empowers the Director-General of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to grant approval of seizure or attachment of property when the case is investigated by the said agency.
  • Power to Investigation: The Act empowers the officers of the NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above, to investigate cases of terrorism in addition to those conducted by the DSP or ACP or above rank officer in the state.

What are the concerns and controversies Surrounding the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act?

• Data by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB): There has been a rise in the use of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act over the past few years. As per the 2019 Crime in India Report compiled by the NCRB, the total number of persons arrested under the Act in 2019 is 1,948.
• Usage across the Country: Many activists, journalists and students have been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in different cases across the country.
• Difficult to obtain bail: Unlawful Activities Prevention Act is India’s main anti-terrorism legislation, but the law makes it more difficult to obtain bail.
  • Example: This difficulty in obtaining bail is being seen as one of the principal reasons for Fr. Swamy’s death as a prisoner in a hospital and compromises constitutional liberties.

What are the criticisms of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act?

• The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act curbs individuals’ Fundamental Rights.
• It restricts the dissenting voices as observed in cases that mostly activists and journalists are its facers.
• Use of Ambiguous Terms like “terrorist act”, “unlawful activity”, “advocacy”, “conspiracy”, “likely to threaten”, and “likely to strike terror” have been framed vaguely.
• Unchecked power to the government as charging persons under offenses such as “supporting” a banned organization and holding property that could be used by it.
• Undermines the Federal Spirit as it provides special power to the central government.
• Low Conviction Rate as observed by only 2.2 % of registered cases under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act between the years 2016-2019.
• Rate of Pendency of Trials is an average of 95.5%, which leads to long years of undertrial imprisonment.

ALSO READ: Extremism And Terrorism

Way Forward

• Prevention of Misuse: The government needs to ensure that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act is not misused to harass genuine social activists.
• Effective Law enforcement: It needs to ensure that there are effective law enforcement mechanisms with checks and balances to prevent and punish terrorist attacks and it is put only to this use.
• Compensation: Higher standards of proof must be applied for conviction and there must be provisions like compensation to victims or punishment/enquiry against those who bring malicious complaints.
• Role of Judiciary: The Judiciary needs to play an active role and provide early bail to the falsely accused and quash the baseless allegations at the early stage.

Conclusion

In striking a delicate balance between the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and national security imperatives, it becomes crucial to navigate with precision, upholding the rule of law while addressing security concerns, to safeguard individual rights and preserve the democratic ethos.