INTRODUCTION
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was passed in 1967 to tackle the threats to the sovereignty and integrity of India. It was passed to curb terrorist activities in India. However, the stringency of the Act has posed a challenge to human rights as well as justice. Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings – any state does not grant them. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status.UAPA acts as a threat to the human rights of the common people while simultaneously acting as a roadblock in the work of human rights activists.
HOW IS THE UAPA HARMFUL?
UAPA is popularly known as the “anti-terror law” in India. After it effectively substituted POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) in 2004, the UAPA has been used by all law enforcement agencies throughout the country as the foremost anti-terror law. It is an extremely draconian law that gives the government, police, and investigating agencies immense power to curb the people’s rights.
- UAPA defines the term “terrorist act” in S. 15 as any act done to threaten the unity, integrity, security (including economic security), or sovereignty of India. This definition is very vague and may cover activities that are non-violent political and necessary for a human rights activist. The highest penalty given for such terrorist acts is the death penalty or sometimes life imprisonment.
- The Act also gives the power to the central government to declare any organization as ‘unlawful’ or ‘terrorist’ and ban it. This directly brings the organization’s ideology under doubt. Having a similar ideology as that of the organization, or even possessing literature belonging to that organization is considered an offence. Membership in any such organization is also criminalized. Thus, the Act is a threat to the fundamental rights of citizens such as the right to freedom of expression and association as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. These rights also overlap with human rights. The organizations that work for minorities and the vulnerable sections of society may easily be termed ‘unlawful’ under the Act and their members can be easily arrested.
- The violation of human rights perpetuates even after the arrest of the members. They do not get bail easily or even by following the due process. As it is popularly said, “We live in a country where bail is the rule and jail is the exception”. However, provisions of the UAPA are contradictory to this saying. It allows detention without a chargesheet for up to 180 days and police custody can be up to 30 days. Detention of the accused for so long can lead to gross violation of human rights, especially the right to life. This clearly shows that the alleged offenders are not treated at par with other criminals who have committed offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Our Constitution guarantees us the right of “innocent until proven guilty”. However, this provision of a longer detention period leads to a presumption of the guilt of the offender only based on the evidence gathered.
CASE STUDIES
In 2019, an amendment was made to the UAPA which allowed the categorization or designation of individuals in addition to organisations as “terrorists”. This has worsened the situation. Violation of human rights under the UAPA can be explored through the following case studies:
- The Bhima Koregaon case:
On 31 December 2017, members of the Dalit community gathered at Bhima Koregaon to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Koregaon. On 1 January 2018, violence arose at the gathering when the members of the Dalit community clashed with the Hindu residents. It resulted in the arrest of 16 renowned activists under the UAPA for instigating violence through their speeches at the event, also known as the Elgar Parishad. Three years passed, but no official charges were instituted against them. Some of them got bail after spending an extensive period in custody from two to five years. This case is a good example showing the darker side of UAPA. Through such a long detention without giving any proper reason, the state has disregarded the basic rights of all the accused such as their right to life or to make a life worth living and the right to free movement.
- The death of Stan Swamy:
Stan Swamy was one of the sixteen arrested in the Bhima Koregaon case. He was an eighty-four-year-old priest who suffered from Parkinson’s disease and also got infected with COVID-19 while in prison. Despite such serious health ailments, he was denied basic facilities like a straw and a sipper even after multiple requests. His bail was denied for three years and he passed away in custody. This incident shows a gross violation of the human rights of the accused. It shows the denial of the right to health as the authorities failed to arrange timely treatment and adequate medical facilities.
- The case of Prof. G.N. Saibaba:
Prof. Saibaba was arrested under the UAPA in 2014 and was acquitted in 2024 after spending a decade in prison. He was 90% disabled but was still kept in solitary confinement in cells without toilets or ramps. He was denied medical care even though he was suffering from several illnesses. This case shows how the human rights of even the disabled are violated when they get arrested under the UAPA. Not only are they denied any special treatment (which they ideally deserve) but are also denied even basic rights such as the right to get medical facilities. This also exposes how insensitive the legal system has become towards the accused, especially the disabled.
All these case studies not only show the transgression of human rights but also depict that justice has been substantially delayed. And as strongly put by William E. Gladstone “Justice delayed is justice denied”.
CONCLUSION
From 2014 to 2022, a total of 8,719 cases were registered under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), and of these, there were acquittals in 567 cases, while 215 resulted in conviction. This means that the conviction rate under UAPA during the above-mentioned period is less than 3%. Such a situation questions the utility of UAPA. Is the UAPA truly useful for rendering justice? Has it achieved its true purpose? Has it weakened the principle of justice? All these questions need to be answered before it is too late. Human rights violations should be taken seriously and reforms must be made in the system for delivering justice. It can be rightly said that the biggest casualty that happens with a terrorist attack is the casualty of the rule of law. With every terrorist attack, a more stringent law comes into existence and puts human rights in a state of peril. To overcome such a situation, a balance needs to be sought between the stringency of the laws and the protection of human rights (especially of the accused). Only then can justice be truly achieved.
Author(s) Name: Riya Pimputkar (ILS Law College, Pune)
