Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967
- Delivering a judgment defining the contours of the otherwise “vague” Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (UAPA) a division bench of the Delhi High Court has laid down some important principles upon the imposition of Section 15, 17 & 18 of the Act.
- A total of 1126 cases were registered under UAPA in 2019, a sharp rise from 897 in 2015.
"Sections 15, 17 and 18 of UAPA:
- S.15 engrafts the offence of ‘terrorist act’.
- S.17 lays down the punishment for raising funds for committing a terrorist act.
- S.18 engrafts the offence of ‘punishment for conspiracy etc. to commit a terrorist act or any act preparatory to commit a terrorist act’.
Key observations made by the court:
- “Terrorist Act” Should not be used lightly so as to trivialise them.
- Terrorist activity is that which travels beyond the capacity of law enforcement agencies to deal with under ordinary penal law.
- The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur.
- Every terrorist may be a criminal but every criminal cannot be labelled terrorist (Hitendra Vishnu Thakur judgment).
- Terrorist acts should not be equated with the usual law and order problem in the state.
- “Terrorist Act” Can’t Be Casually Applied To Cases Falling Within Conventional Offences Under IPC.
Implications of this judgment:
- With this, the court has raised the bar for the State to book an individual for terrorism under the UAPA.
- It also points out alleged misuse of the UAPA against individuals in cases that do not necessarily fall in the category of “terrorism” cases.
- This caution is significant given the sharp surge in the state’s use of this provision in a sweeping range of alleged offences — against tribals in Chhattisgarh, those using social media through proxy servers in Jammu and Kashmir; and journalists in Manipur among others.