UAPA – State’s Machinery to Criminalize Dissent

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

Follow us

The amendments in the anti-terror law have given the union arbitrary power to curb freedom and infringe the rights of the citizen.

The Constitution Sixteenth (Amendment) Act, 1963, which amended clauses 2, 3, and 4 of Article 19 of the Indian constitution, has paved the way for the enactment of UAPA. Empowering the central government to enact any legislation imposing reasonable restriction on rights bestowed under Article 19 sub-clause (a)[freedom of speech and expression]; (b) [assemble peaceably and without arms]; (c) [form associations or unions] of clause (1) in the interest of the sovereignty and the integrity of the nation. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was first passed in 1967, which provided government power to impose ‘reasonable restrictions’ on the fundamental right to association confirmed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Before the enactment of UAPA, 1967, a resolution was passed by the National Integration Council (NIC) headed by the Prime Minister. The NIC urge the parliament to frame a law to tackle unlawful activities and unlawful organisations.

The UAPA of 1967 can broadly be categorized into three primary objectives. 

  • Declaration of an association as unlawful.
  • Penalty for being a member of an unlawful association.
  • Penalty for dealing with the funds of an unlawful association.

However, the Act has been amended seven times, with the recent amendment in 2019, to incorporate the changing technique of terrorism, from shifting the burden of proof to making an extraterritorial arrest. Before 2019, UAPA dealt with unlawful activities and terrorist acts. It banned unlawful organisations as well as terrorist organisations. Moreover, the parliament enacted two alternative laws to deal with terrorism, namely, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act – TADA and Prevention of Terrorist Act, 2002 – POTA. However, both the laws were repealed on the ground that the statutes were misused, overused, and abused, but the new amendments in the UAPA are in the lines of these repealed laws.

Prominent Amendments in 2019

The significant amendments made in 2019, in the parent Act of 1967 include: First, the Designation of an individual as “terrorist”. The parliament amended the section 35 and 36 of chapter VI, which empowered the Central government to tag an individual as “terrorist” if he/she: commits or participate in terrorist activities, prepare for terrorism, encourage terrorism or otherwise involved in terrorism. 

Second, the amended Act amended the section 25 and has empowered the NIA to conduct a raid and the seizure of properties that are suspected to be linked to terrorist activities, by taking the sanction of the Director-General of NIA. Before the 2019 amendment, the NIA officers were required to take the permission of DGP of the state for raid and seizure of the properties. This very amendment in section 25 seems to attack the federal structure of the nation.

Third, the recent amendments, apart from the officers of the status of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police or above, have additionally empowered the officers of the NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above, to investigate cases under section 43.

Fourth, the amended Act adds another treaty to the existing nine treaties recorded in a schedule of the Act. The newly added treaty is the International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005). Now, any act which would come under the scope of the treaty mentioned above would term as terrorist Act. 


The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, is yet again another machinery to curb the dissenting voice of the nation. Despite the searing opposition to the bill, it was passed in the parliament. The law got criticised mainly on two grounds. First, the new amendments undermine Human Rights. Second, the new bill undermines the federal structure of the nation. 

The power vesting on the union to designate an individual as a “terrorist”, seems to be a problematic provision, as the Act fails to define what constitutes terrorism. The vagueness in the fundamentals of the Act means a massive discretionary power in the hands of the union and its investigative authorities to bring anyone in the domain of the “terrorist offence”. Moreover, the criteria for designation an individual is the same as that of an organisation. This means the Act fails to recognise that an individual, unlike an organisation, has their fundamentals rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. Further, the terrorist tag on an individual without any trial would curtail the right to reputation and right to life with dignity guaranteed under Article 21. As there is no prescribed guideline, as what will happen to a person designated as a terrorist, it may lead to a social boycott of the individual. Also, the 2019 amendment is conflicting with the principle of “innocent until proven”, which is a universal human right under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1967.


The law enacted to combat terror in the nation is a threat to its citizens. As it is capable enough to be misused as other laws such as MISA, POTA, TADA, which were repealed. However, the recent amendment in the UAPA is on the same line as the repealed law and is a threat to democracy. As it can be speculated, through the recent arrests of the students, activists, and journalists who do not comply with the government. The law is used to curb the voice of the dissenters. The law is a threat to free speech guaranteed under the Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution.


  1. Anushka Singh: “Criminalising Dissent Consequences of UAPA,” Economics & Political Weekly, Sep. 22, 2012.
  2. “Designating Individual as Terrorist,” Economics & Political Weekly, Aug. 10, 2019.
  3. Siddharth Varadarajan, “Allowing the State to Designate Someone as a ‘Terrorist’ Without Trial is Dangerous,”, Aug. 02, 2019.
  4. “The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill,” 2019, “,
  5. Naorem Anuja, “The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act,”, Apr. 20, 2019.

This Article is written by Priya Singh, Student at West Bengal, National University of Juridical Sciences. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Kerala High Court Disposes of Writ Petition on Grounds That Reliefs Sought Are Already in Process of Being Granted, Directs State to Complete the...

Excerpt A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Shircy V. gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. This writ is filed by...

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -