Origin:

  • It was first promulgated in 1967 to target secessionist organisations and considered to be a predecessor of laws such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) (now repealed)

Aims:

  • It aims at effective prevention of unlawful activities in India.
  • Unlawful activity refers to any action taken by an individual or association intended to disrupt the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.
  • 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.

KEY PROVISIONS

  • Punishment: It has the death penalty and life imprisonment as the highest punishments. Both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged. It will be applicable to the offenders in the same manner even if the crime is committed on foreign land, outside India.
  • Chargesheet: 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.

Issues related with the Law:

  • Misuse of the law by the state: According to NCRB data, from 2016-2019, 4231 FIRs were filed under UAPA, out of which 112 cases have resulted in convictions.
  • Vague Definition of Terrorist Act: The definition of a “terrorist act” under the UAPA offers an overbroad and ambiguous definition of a “terrorist act” which includes the death of, or injuries to, any person, damage to any property,
  • Denial of Bail: The major problem with the UAPA lies in its Section 43(D)(5), which prevents the release of any accused person on bail if, police have filed the chargesheet that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.
  • Pendency of Trails: Given the state of justice delivery system in India, the rate of pendency at the level of trial is at an average of 95.5 per cent.
  • Anarchy by the state:
    • It gives the state authority vague powers to detain and arrest individuals who it believes to be indulged in terrorist activities.
    • Thus, the state gives itself more powers vis-a-vis individual liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution.
  • Undermining Federalism: Some experts feel that it is against the federal structure since it neglects the authority of state police in terrorism cases, given that ‘Police’ is a state subject under 7th schedule of Indian Constitution.