Editorial: Time for judicial review of UAPA

Dissent is an integral part of a mature democracy. It is only in authoritarian regimes or in the colonial past that any criticism of the government is treated as an act of terror or declaration of war against the State. Anachronistic as it may seem in the present day and age, there has been a growing trend of slapping sedition cases against the voices of dissent in the country. The sedition law and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are being grossly misused, often with impunity. The arrest of two lawyers and a journalist in Tripura under the draconian provisions of the UAPA is the latest instance of how the harsh laws are being invoked to harass citizens. The Supreme Court agreeing to urgently list the matter regarding these arrests is a welcome development and provides an opportunity for a judicial review of the oppressive laws. Time has come for repealing the sedition law and the offensive portions of the UAPA which was enacted in 1967 for application only in rare instances. However, the experience has shown that it is being indiscriminately used by the governments — both Centre and States — to varying degrees. Going by the statistics of the National Crime Records Bureau, the year 2019 saw the biggest jump in cases filed under the UAPA. As many as 1,226 people were arrested under the controversial anti-terror law. A very low conviction rate of less than 3% indicates that the UAPA is indiscriminately used by the police to harass and intimidate.

By the time the judges get to apply themselves to the allegations made in the charge sheets, the accused would have already spent years in custody. It is time for all political parties to eschew their blinkered approach and make an effort to repeal this unlawful law. Judicial experts view the UAPA as part of the police’s efforts to stifle peaceful dissent. The tendency among the police has been to frequently use the anti-terrorism law as it enables them to detain the accused for longer periods without a trial. Under the law, investigative agencies get 180 days to probe a case, compared with 60-90 days under ordinary criminal law. This means an accused is eligible to apply for bail only after six months. Though social media posts, per se, cannot be said to constitute an unlawful or terrorist activity, there has been a growing trend of investigating agencies labeling them as unlawful. This triggers a host of draconian procedures effectively barring bail. While the much-maligned Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) were repealed after massive public outrage, successive governments at the Centre — both the UPA and NDA — have conveniently enlarged the scope of the UAPA by incorporating some of the key features of these repealed laws.