Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
It was created to prevent organizations in India from engaging in unlawful activities.
Also referred to as the Anti-Terror Law.
The Act allowed for the designation of an association or group of people as “unlawful” if they engaged in any activities that included
actions, words, or statements that supported any claim to bring about “the cession of a part of the territory of India” or its “secession” or that questioned or denied the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Provisions to prevent the use of funds for terrorist purposes, including money laundering, the declaration of associations as unlawful, punishment for terrorist acts and activities, acts threatening the nation’s security, including its economic security.
Unlawful organizations were formerly prohibited for a period of two years, however, as of 2013, that timeline has been increased to five years.
The Act was further amended in 2019 to allow the government to designate an individual as a terrorist.
Anyone in our country who violates this Act’s provisions and is found to be responsible is subject to punishment under this Act.
Any person who commits an offense outside of India that is punishable by this Act would be treated in accordance with its provisions in the same way as if the offense had been committed within India.
Recent SC judgements
The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira, accused in the Bhima-Koregaon case.
The court highlighted that merely holding literature propagating violent acts or participation in seminars will not constitute a ‘terrorist act’ under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
Mere association or the professing of association with a terror organisation is not enough to attract the offence of “membership” of such an outfit.
It held that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has to “prima facie establish” that a person is associated with a terror organisation with the intention to further its terrorist activities.
Only then can “appellants be brought within the fold of the offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation”.
“There is nothing against the appellants to prima facie establish that they had indulged in the activities which would constitute overawing any public functionary by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force… Mere holding of certain literature through which violent acts may be propagated would not ipso facto attract the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) [terrorist act],” Justice Bose, who authored the judgment, held.
COMMENTS