Context of the News
The Supreme Court of India denied bail in the 2020 Delhi riots case by relying on the wide definition of “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the UAPA.
This has revived debate on the expanding scope of India’s anti-terror law.
Background
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) was enacted to protect India’s sovereignty and integrity.
For UPSC, it links Polity (Fundamental Rights, Article 21, national security) and Governance (internal security laws).
News Breakdown
What is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
Definition first:
- UAPA is India’s principal law to deal with unlawful activities and terrorism.
- It aims to protect the unity, integrity, sovereignty, and security of India.
Key points:
- Enacted in 1967
- Initially did not deal with terrorism
- Focused on secessionist and anti-national activities
Origin of the Law
- Linked to the National Integration Council under Jawaharlal Nehru
- Led to the 16th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1963
- Enabled reasonable restrictions on Article 19 freedoms
- UAPA was enacted to enforce these restrictions
Evolution of UAPA (Chronological)
| Amendment | Key Change |
| 2004 | Terrorism added (Sections 15–23) |
| 2008 | Expanded definition after 26/11 attacks |
| 2012 | Included economic security & counterfeit currency |
| 2019 | Allowed individuals to be declared terrorists |
Section 15: Definition of Terrorism
Standard definition:
- A terrorist act is any act intended to:
- Threaten unity, integrity, sovereignty, security, or economic security of India
- Strike terror among people in India or abroad
Important features:
- Covers use of explosives, firearms, chemicals, or “any other means”
- Punishment:
- Minimum 5 years
- May extend to life imprisonment or death
Why controversial?
- Broad phrases like “likely to strike terror”
- Even potential acts can be prosecuted
Why Bail is Difficult under UAPA
- Anticipatory bail is barred
- Courts cannot deeply examine evidence at bail stage
- Based on SC ruling in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
- Presumption tilts against the accused
Arguments in Favour of UAPA
- National Security: Enables preventive action against terrorism
- Deterrence: Stringent punishment discourages terror networks
- International Alignment: Complies with UN counter-terror conventions
- Terror Financing Control: Criminalises funding and counterfeit currency
- Pre-emptive Power: Helps act before large-scale violence occurs
Arguments Against UAPA
- Article 21 Violation: Liberty becomes the exception, not the rule
- Presumption of Guilt: Weakens criminal jurisprudence
- Individual Designation: Persons can be labelled terrorists without conviction
- Criminalisation of Dissent: Peaceful protests risk prosecution
- Human Rights Concerns: Criticised by UN Special Rapporteurs (2020)
- Low Conviction Rate: Less than 3% (PUCL Report, 2022)
What Reforms are Needed?
- Narrow Definitions: Clear meaning of “terrorist act”
- Bail Reforms: Restore presumption of innocence
- Speedy Trials: Fast-track UAPA cases
- Compensation: For wrongful detention
- Supported by Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar
- Stronger Oversight: Parliamentary review and data transparency
Prelims Focus
- UAPA enacted in 1967
- Terrorism added only in 2004
- Section 15 defines “terrorist act”
- Anticipatory bail not allowed
- Individuals can be designated terrorists (2019 amendment)
- Conviction rate below 3% (2015–2020)
Conclusion / Way Forward
India needs a balanced UAPA that protects national security without diluting constitutional liberty and democratic dissent.
Prelims Check
Question 1
With reference to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, consider the following statements:
- Terrorism was part of UAPA from its inception.
- Individuals can be designated as terrorists under UAPA.
- Anticipatory bail is permitted under UAPA.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 2 only
(b) 1 and 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Question 2
Consider the following amendments to the UAPA:
- Inclusion of economic security
- Introduction of “any other means” in defining terrorism
- Power to designate individuals as terrorists
Arrange them in chronological order.
(a) 1–2–3
(b) 2–1–3
(c) 2–3–1
(d) 3–2–1
Question 3
Which of the following best explains the Supreme Court’s approach to bail under UAPA?
(a) Courts must examine evidence in detail
(b) Bail is a fundamental right under UAPA
(c) Courts should assume charges to be prima facie true
(d) Bail provisions are identical to CrPC
Answers with Explanation
Q1. Answer: (a)
- Terrorism added only in 2004
- Individuals can be designated terrorists (2019)
- Anticipatory bail is barred
Q2. Answer: (b)
- “Any other means” – 2008
- Economic security – 2012
- Individual designation – 2019
Q3. Answer: (c)
- Based on Watali judgment
- Limited judicial scrutiny at bail stage
- Presumption against the accused
“Liberty survives not by denying security, but by securing it through justice.”
