India Today – August 19, 2019

O

nAugust2,Parliamentpassedthe

UnlawfulActivities(Prevention)

AmendmentBill,(UAPA)2019.

Theamendmentintroduces,inanearlier

incarnationofthelaw—theUAPA1967—a

smallbutvenomouschange,allowingforthe

notificationofindividualsas‘terrorists’;under

theearlierUAPA,onlyorganisations,not

individuals,couldbesonotified.Unlikegeneral

criminallaw,theUAPAallowstheStatetokeep

apersonincustodyforsixmonthswithouta

chargesheet,andtheprovisionsforbailmake

itnearimpossibleforanaccusedpersonto

actuallysecurebail.UAPAprosecutionsinthe

countryarebasedontenuousevidenceornone

atallandoftenresultinacquittalsonlyafter

10 orsoyearsofrottinginjail.Astudyofthese

casesshowsthatthepurposeofprosecutionis

notconvictionbuttokeeppoliticalopponents,

againstwhomthereisnoevidence,injailfor

aslongaspossible.Eventhoughthetrialmay

endinacquittal,fromapolicingpointofview,

thepurposeoftheStateisservedbykeeping

intellectualadversariesincarceratedfor

indefiniteperiods,withoutthelegalobligation

toshowreasonablecause.

Theamendmentsareunconstitutional

forthesimplereasonthattheyallowtheState

tonotifyapersonasaterroristwithouta

procedureestablishedbylaw.Foralawtobe

constitutional,itmustnotbearbitrary;adverse

consequencescanonlybeimposedonaperson

throughalawfulprocedure.Nottogivea

personnoticeofwhats/heisbeingcharged

with,andwithoutgivingthepersonachance

toprovethats/heisnotaterrorist,ispatently

unconstitutional,andwillnotstandupto

judicialscrutinyinIndiancourts.Thefactthat

thereisapost-stigmatisingprocedureforbeing

takenoffthelisthasbeenheldinlawtobeno

remedyatall.

Whatiscrucial,however,isthe

government’sstatedintentionofhowthis

amendmentisproposedtobeused.Thisis

wheretheterroroftheStatecomesin.Itis

tobeused,inthewordsofthegovernment,

toclampdownon“propaganda”and“urban

Maoists”,whichgenerallymeanspossession

ofrevolutionaryliterature.Iftheprosecutions

ofthepastoneyearareanythingtogoby,

thosewhomadecartoonsagainstgovernment

officials,journalistslikeKishoreChandra

Wangkhem,whousedswearwordsagainst

hischiefminister,andjournalistsonwhose

computerstheworksof,say,MaoTse-tung

arefoundwillallbeprosecutedasterrorists

withouteverthrowingabomborfiringagun.

It’stimeforcivilsocietytochallengesuch

prosecutionsintheHighCourtsandthe

SupremeCourttoputanendtosuchterrorist

activitiesperpetratedbytheState.Starting

fromtheConstitutionBenchdecisioninKedar

NathSingh, 1962 toBalwantSingh’scasefrom

Punjab(1995),onlyanovertactattractsthe

chargeofterrorism.Therighttofree(political)

speechispracticallyabsolute.IntheBalwant

Singhcase,ayoungmancameoutonthestreets

ofChandigarhandmadeaspeechaskingpeople

totakeuparmsandfightforKhalistan.Hewas

prosecutedandconvicted.Whenthecasecame

upintheSupremeCourt,theStatewasasked

whethertheaccusedhad,havingmadesuch

aspeech,takenanyfurtherstepstorealisehis

passionforKhalistan.Theanswerwasnegative

andhewasacquitted.Inasimilarcasefrom

Srinagar,ayoungmanexhortedthepublicto

takeuparmsagainsttheStateandfightfor

AzadKashmir,butdidnothingmore;thatcase

tooendedinanacquittal.

Thesweepingandindiscriminateuseof

criminallawagainstpersonswhocommit

nocrimesexceptarticulatingapassionate

politicaloppositiontotheStateisamodern

formofstateterrorism.Thoseinpositionsof

powerwhospeakagainstterrorismareoften

themselvesterrorists.n

ColinGonsalvesisadesignatedSenior

AdvocateoftheSupremeCourtandfounderof

theHumanRightsLawNetwork

UPFRONT

Illustration by TANMOY CHAKRABORTY

The UAPA
amendments
are unconstitu-

tional for the
simple reason
that they allow
the State to
notify a person

as a terrorist

without a

procedure

established

by law

WHO IS THE REAL

TERRORIST?

POINT OF VIEW

By Colin Gonsalves