The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
1. UAPA – History and Enactment
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (UAPA) is a key piece of Bharatiya legislation aimed at preventing unlawful activities that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of Bharat. Enacted on December 30, 1967, following the assent of the President, the UAPA was introduced to empower the central government to address activities undermining national unity, particularly in the context of secessionist movements and anti-national activities. Its origins trace back to the recommendations of the National Integration Council, which appointed a Committee on National Integration and Regionalisation to examine the need for reasonable restrictions in the interest of Bharat’s sovereignty. This led to the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, which provided the constitutional basis for imposing restrictions on freedoms like speech, assembly, and association to protect national integrity.
The UAPA was initially focused on curbing unlawful associations and activities related to communalism, casteism, and regionalism. However, its scope expanded significantly through amendments, particularly after the repeal of earlier anti-terror laws like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 1987, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002. Key amendments in 2004 introduced provisions to address terrorist activities, incorporating elements of POTA. Further amendments in 2008, following the Mumbai terror attacks, and in 2012 strengthened measures against terrorism and terror financing. The most significant amendment came in 2019, allowing the government to designate individuals as terrorists without a formal judicial process, expanding the Act’s ambit to cover cyber-terrorism, terrorist financing, and property seizure.
2. Significance and Characteristics of UAPA
The UAPA is a cornerstone of Bharat’s counter-terrorism framework, designed to safeguard national security by addressing threats to the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Its significance lies in providing law enforcement agencies, particularly the National Investigation Agency (NIA), with robust tools to investigate and prosecute terrorism-related activities. The Act enables the designation of individuals and organizations as terrorists, facilitating asset freezes, travel bans, and sanctions.
Key Characteristics:
Broad Definitions: The UAPA defines “unlawful activity” as actions that support or incite secession, question Bharat’s sovereignty, or disrespect its territorial integrity. The term “terrorist act” includes actions likely to threaten Bharat’s unity, integrity, or security, using vague phrases like “likely to strike terror” or “means of whatever nature.”
Designation Powers: The 2019 amendment allows the government to label individuals as terrorists without judicial oversight, adding their names to Schedule IV of the Act.
Detention and Bail: The Act permits detention without charge for up to 180 days and places a high burden on the accused to prove innocence for bail, making it difficult to secure release.
Extraterritorial Application: The UAPA applies to Indian citizens, government employees, and persons on Indian-registered ships or aircraft, even for offenses committed abroad.
Centralized Authority: It grants the central government wide powers to ban organizations and prescribe punishments, with limited avenues for appeal, such as review committees that lack transparency.
3. Application of UAPA in Bharat and Abroad
In Bharat, the UAPA is applied by the NIA and state police to address terrorism, secessionist movements, and related activities. It has been used against groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, and individuals such as Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed, enabling asset freezes and sanctions. The Act is invoked in cases involving Maoist insurgencies, separatist movements in regions like Jammu and Kashmir, and alleged terror financing. Its broad definitions allow prosecution of activities ranging from direct terrorist acts to supporting or promoting terrorism.
Abroad, the UAPA’s extraterritorial reach applies to Bharatiya citizens and those on Bharatiya-registered vessels or aircraft committing offenses under the Act. This ensures that actions threatening Bharat’s sovereignty, even if committed outside its borders, fall under its jurisdiction. The Act aligns with international commitments, such as those under the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), to combat money laundering and terrorism financing, enhancing Bharat’s cooperation with global counter-terrorism efforts.
4. Punishments under UAPA
The UAPA prescribes stringent punishments to deter unlawful and terrorist activities:
Terrorist Acts: Punishable by death or life imprisonment, especially if the act results in death.
Membership in Terrorist Organizations: Imprisonment up to life for participating in or supporting banned organizations.
Supporting Terrorism: Penalties include imprisonment for 5 years to life for raising funds, organizing terror camps, or recruiting for terrorist activities.
Unlawful Activities: Imprisonment up to 7 years for actions supporting secession or disrespecting Bharat’s sovereignty.
Property Seizure: The Act allows confiscation of property linked to terrorist activities, with amendments in 2019 expanding this provision.
The Act’s harsh penalties, combined with prolonged detention periods (up to 180 days without charge), underscore its severity.
5. Criticism of UAPA
The UAPA has faced significant criticism for its potential to undermine civil liberties and due process:
Vague Definitions: Terms like “terrorist,” “likely to threaten,” and “means of whatever nature” are criticized for being overly broad, enabling misuse against dissenters, journalists, and activists.
Lack of Judicial Oversight: The 2019 amendment allowing individual designations as terrorists without a formal judicial process has been flagged by critics, including United Nations special rapporteurs, for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Low Conviction Rates: Despite its extensive use, the conviction rate under UAPA is reportedly around 2%, suggesting that prolonged detention often serves as punishment, as seen in cases like Gaur Chakraborty, who was acquitted after 7 years in prison.
Suppression of Dissent: Critics argue that the Act is used to silence political opposition, with cases like the arrest of activists in the Bhima Koregaon violence (2018) cited as examples of targeting dissenters.
Bail Restrictions: The stringent bail provisions, requiring the accused to prove innocence, make release difficult, leading to prolonged incarceration even in weak cases.
Violation of Free Speech: The Act’s application against journalists and activists for criticizing the government is seen as curbing freedom of expression.
The Delhi High Court in 2021 noted misuse of the UAPA, observing that the government had expanded the scope of “terrorist activity” to include ordinary penal offenses, further fueling concerns about its draconian nature.
6. Requirement of UAPA
The UAPA is deemed necessary to address Bharat’s complex security challenges, including terrorism, insurgency, and secessionist movements. Supporters argue that:
National Security: The Act equips authorities to combat threats like cross-border terrorism and Maoist insurgencies, protecting Bharat’s sovereignty.
International Obligations: It aligns with global standards, such as FATF requirements, to curb terror financing and enhance international cooperation.
Comprehensive Framework: The UAPA provides a unified legal mechanism to tackle diverse threats, from terrorist acts to supporting unlawful organizations.
Deterrence: Harsh penalties and detention provisions deter potential threats to national security.
7. Notable Cases under UAPA
Several high-profile cases highlight the UAPA’s application and controversies:
Bhima Koregaon Violence (2018): Activists like Varavara Rao, Sudha Bharadwaj, and Stan Swamy were arrested for allegedly inciting violence and links to Maoist groups. Stan Swamy, a Jesuit priest, died in custody in 2021 due to COVID-19, raising concerns about prolonged detention and lack of medical care.
Gaur Chakraborty: Arrested under UAPA, he spent 7 years in prison before being acquitted, illustrating how the process can become punishment.
Designation of Terrorists: Individuals like Masood Azhar, Hafiz Saeed, and Dawood Ibrahim have been designated as terrorists, enabling asset freezes and sanctions.
8. Conclusion
The UAPA is a critical tool in Bharat’s fight against terrorism and threats to national integrity, but its broad provisions and lack of judicial oversight have sparked debates about its impact on fundamental rights. While it addresses pressing security needs, its low conviction rate and alleged misuse highlight the need for reforms to ensure fairness and protect civil liberties. Balancing national security with democratic principles remains a key challenge for the UAPA’s future application.
References
1. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
2. Supreme Court Observer, Challenges to the UAPA, available at https://www.scobserver.in/journal/brief-history-challenges-to-the-uapa/, last visited on 2.8.2025
3. iPleaders, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/unlawful-activities-prevention-act-uapa-1967/, last visited on 2.8.2025
4. Economic and Political Weekly, Dissent in a Democracy, available at https://www.epw.in/engage/article/dissent-democracy-political-imprisonment-under, last visited on 2.8.2025
5. Frontline, New Act UAPA: Absolute Power to State, available at https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/article29618049.ece, last visited on 2.8.2025
![The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [Paperback] Lexis ...](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51YY9TKedJL._SY445_SX342_.jpg)
