UAPA Amendment Bill 2019: Hit where it hurts more
UAPA Amendment Bill 2019
Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar to be First 2 Declared Terrorists after UAPA Amendments are Enforced
The biggest challenge we face in the current generation is Terrorism. Thousands of people have lost their lives, millions of children have lost their sole earning parents across the world. People are living in the fear of bombing, killing of terrorism. It has its presence in East of New Zealand to the far west of California, USA. India hasn’t been an exception. We have seen serial blasts in Delhi, Jaipur, Hyderabad and also became evidence of Mumbai in the last three decades. 26/11 Taj terror attack of 2008 never allow us to forget the ugly face of terrorism. That attack was so harsh that for the first time Mumbai lost its pace.
So, to counter this bloody event and more rooted challenges Modi government has been strengthening laws.
Why UAPA is in news:
- UAPA is in news due to the fact that the UAPA amendment Bill, 2019 has been passed in parliament.
- Experts and oppositions fear that the current amendments have the potential to be misused by the state machinery.
National Investigative Agency Act 2008 was already amended to empower the investigative agency. Taking the process further, the government has passed an amendment bill to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.
UAPA 1967:
Rajya Sabha passes anti-terror UAPA Bill to declare individuals as terrorists
Background: After Indian army’s defeat in the Sino-Indian War, as well as the threat posed by the DMK contesting elections in Tamil Nadu with secession from India being part of their manifesto, UAPA was enacted in 1967 – to satisfy the need of the Indian state to declare associations that sought secession from India as ‘unlawful’.
So, it gave powers to the central government to impose an all-India ban on associations. The process of banning associations could simply be done by the government announcing them as ‘unlawful’
- Till 2004, “unlawful” activities referred to actions related to secession and cession of territory.
- 2004 amendment, “terrorist act” was added to the list of offences.
- 2012 amendments t: to include offences that threaten the country’s economic security.
Controversial provisions of UAPA
This law provides reasonable restriction on :
- Freedom of Speech and expression
- Right to assemble peacefully without arms.
- Right to form Association or Union
It is due to such controversial provisions that activists believed it as a tool used by the government to suppress dissent so time and again they have voiced their opinion against UAPA.
The stringent provisions of this law also came in news after 9 activists, lawyers and writers were arrested by the Pune police on charges of inciting violence at Bhima-Koregaon village on January 1, 2018.
Provisions of UAPA Amendment Bill 2019
1. Who Commit Terrorism
Under the Act, the central government may designate an organization as a terrorist organization if it:
- Commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
- prepares for terrorism,
- promotes terrorism, or
- is otherwise involved in terrorism.
New provision: The Bill additionally empowers the government to designate individuals as terrorists on the same grounds.
2. Approval For Seizure Of Property By NIA
Currently, forfeiture of property representing proceeds of terrorism can only be made with prior approval in writing by the DGPs of the state wherein such property is located.
New provision: Amendment gives powers to DG, NIA to attach properties acquired from the proceeds of terrorism.
Many times terror accused its own properties in different states. In such cases, seeking approval of DGPs of different states becomes very difficult, and the delay caused by the same may enable the accused to transfer properties, etc.
3. Investigation By NIA:
No officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police can conduct the investigation in terrorism-related cases.
New provision: The Bill now additionally empowers the officers of the NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above, to investigate cases
As per the government, Inspectors of NIA have acquired sufficient proficiency to investigate these offenses and Senior officers are required to be better utilized for the supervision of the investigation
4. New Treaty Added
Earlier the Act defined terrorist acts, it included acts committed within the scope of any of the treaties listed in a schedule to the Act. The Schedule lists nine treaties, including the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997), and the Convention against Taking of Hostages (1979).
New provision: The amendment adds another treaty to the list. This is the International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005).
Provisions that have not been changed
- There are no changes being made in arrest or bail provisions.
- The burden of proof is on the investigating agency and not on the accused.
Issues still involved:
- There is no set procedure for designating an individual as a terrorist.
- A wrongful designation will cause damage to a person’s reputation, career, and livelihood
- The adverse consequences of a terrorist tag may be worse for individuals than for organizations as individuals may be subjected to arrest and detention; even after obtaining bail from the courts, they may have their travel and movements restricted, besides carrying the dishonor associated with the tag of terrorism itself.
- Anti-federal feature: To empower the head of the National Investigation Agency to approve the forfeiture of property of those involved in terrorism cases obviously overrides a function of the State government.
This provision was necessitated because many individuals may not be part of an organization but maybe indulging in or promoting terror activities. For eg: Dawood Ibrahim
All countries dealing with the threat of terrorism have this provision. Even the UN has the provision to designate an individual as a terrorist. No one will be randomly branded as a terrorist. There are laid down procedures and the government will have to satisfy review committees with evidence to designate anyone as a terrorist. Only one of these —Hyderabad-based Deendar Anjuman — has challenged the designation. The review committee rejected its application, and that decision has not been challenged in any court.
ALSO READ | Narendra Modi | Article 370 | Article 35(A) |
