Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/uapa-s-inherently-flawed-architecture-and-the-role-of-courts-gautam-bhatia.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | UAPA’s inherently flawed architecture and the role of courts -Gautam Bhatia | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

UAPA’s inherently flawed architecture and the role of courts -Gautam Bhatia

-Hindustan Times

A perusal of UAPA shows how its terms — for example, “membership” of unlawful or terrorist organisations — can be stretched to a boundless degree, allowing the State to persecute individuals for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, possessing the wrong kind of literature, or meeting the wrong kind of people, without anything further.

The recent judgment of the Delhi High Court (HC), granting bail to three activists in the 2020 Delhi riots case, and the death of Stan Swamy, have turned the spotlight back on India’s anti-terrorism statute, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Commentators have pointed out how UAPA’s stringent requirements for the grant of bail, coupled with how criminal trials take years, even decades, to complete, mean that individuals spend long periods in jail without being found guilty of any crime. Indeed, a 2% conviction rate shows how, in an overwhelming number of UAPA cases, it is the process that is the punishment.

However, the Delhi HC’s judgment throws light on another important aspect of UAPA. The HC noted that many of the provisions of the law were broad and vaguely worded, leaving wide scope for even innocent persons to be brought within its ambit. Indeed, a perusal of UAPA shows how its terms — for example, “membership” of unlawful or terrorist organisations — can be stretched to a boundless degree, allowing the State to persecute individuals for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, possessing the wrong kind of literature, or meeting the wrong kind of people, without anything further.

How this plays out in practice is revealed by taking a look at one of the very few cases in which a UAPA case actually ended in a conviction. In 2017, a sessions court at Gadchiroli convicted GN Saibaba and five other individuals under various provisions of UAPA such as membership of terrorist organisations and facilitation of terrorist acts, and sentenced all but one of them to imprisonment for life. At the time of writing, the case is under appeal in the Nagpur HC, although it is yet to be heard on merits.

A perusal of the Gadchiroli case shows how the broad provisions of UAPA are not only weaponised to deny individuals bail at the time of trial, but also to subject them to years of incarceration through conviction, rare though such cases might be. In its bail judgment, the Delhi HC had noted that neither inferences nor hypotheticals were sufficient under UAPA, but individualised, particular, and factual allegations of specific acts were needed to be put forward by the prosecution to justify keeping an individual in jail.

Please click here to read more.