Relevance: Mains: G.S paper III: Economy
Approach:
- Introduce UAPA in brief
- Mention the changes that has been added
- Give the reason why human rights organizations are opposing
- Give a balanced conclusion with way forward
Model Answer:
Who is a “terrorist” in the UAPA Bill?
- The words “terror” or “terrorist” are not defined in the UAPA Bill.
- Section 15 of the UAPA defines a “terrorist act” as any act committed with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country.
- The original Act dealt with “unlawful” acts related to secession; anti-terror provisions were introduced in 2004.
Designating a terrorist
- The Bill seeks to empower the central government to designate an individual a “terrorist” if they are found committing, preparing for, promoting, or involved in an act of terror.
- A similar provision already exists in Part 4 and 6 of the legislation for organisations that can be designated as a “terrorist organisation”.
How individuals are declared terrorists?
- The central government may designate an individual as a terrorist through a notification in the official gazette, and add his name to the schedule supplemented to the UAPA Bill.
- The government is not required to give an individual an opportunity to be heard before such a designation.
- At present, in line with the legal presumption of an individual being innocent until proven guilty, an individual who is convicted in a terror case is legally referred to as a terrorist.
- While those suspected of being involved in terrorist activities are referred to as terror accused.
- The new Bill does not clarify the standard of proof required to establish that an individual is involved or is likely to be involved in terrorist activities.
What are the other major changes proposed in the UAPA Bill?
The existing UAPA law requires an investigating officer to take prior permission of the Director General of Police of a state for conducting raids, and seizing properties that are suspected to be linked to terrorist activities.
The amendment Bill, however, removes this requirement if the investigation is conducted by an officer of the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The investigating officer, under the Bill, only requires sanction from the Director General of NIA.
Central agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are required to obtain prior permission from the state government since law and order is a state subject under the Constitution.
The existing UAPA law specifies that only officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police of the NIA shall have the power to investigate offences under the UAPA law.
The Bill seeks to allow NIA officers of Inspector rank to carry out investigations.
In its pursuance of ‘zero tolerance’ towards terrorism and any threats to national security, the government tabled major amendments in the legislature to our anti-terror laws. While the need to be vigilant is being felt across all sections, certain amended provisions are also criticized for being in contravention to individual liberties.
The security scenario that warranted these changes:
- The number of terror acts is on the rise in India. Pathankot and Pulwama attacks alarmed us by pointing towards our vulnerabilities.
- Number of individuals being identified as members of terror cells has increased.
- Fast changing global scenario with strengthening of extremist groupings such as ISIS, Indian Mujahideen, Taliban sponsored outfits etc in the middle-east, Pakistan, and Afghanistan will have repercussions in India.
- Separatist activities have also witnessed raise in Kashmir since Burhanwani’s encounter.
Scope of UAPA and NIA Act in handling these challenges:
- It contains special procedures to deal with terrorist activities, individuals and groups that foster terror activities.
- Special provisions are added to deal with individuals, not just groups. This is to nullify the effect of groups forming again with a different name after being banned.
- With powers given to NIA to seize and attach property of accused, it cuts down on financial lifelines to illegal individuals or groups.
- Allowed an officer of rank of inspector of NIA to investigate cases instead of earler provision where DSP rank officer can only do. This removes manpower constraint to some extent in dealing with terror cases.
Concerns raised by human rights activists:
- The provision that allows government to designate any individual a terrorist is the most contentious of all. It is argued that this provision could be misused for political vendetta.
- There are no procedures laid down on how to further with persecution process of such designated individual. Yet, the act of designating itself damages the reputation of individual and goes against right to reputation under article21.
- This can deter any individual from criticizing the government even in a constructive manner. Thus running counter to freedoms under article 19.
- NIA is allowed to go to any state and conduct investigation without the permission of the state government. This goes against the federal principle.
While our constitution has subordinated individual rights to national security concerns, care must also be taken that tools to strengthen security do not become restraints to our democratic principles. Such acts must be passed after due deliberation from all stakeholders with clear cut definitions and well established procedures in order to prevent any misuse of its provisions.