UAPA – Provisions, Significance & Challenges – Explained Pointwise

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is India’s primary anti-terror law. Originally enacted in 1967, it has been significantly amended over the decades-most notably in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2019 – to broaden its scope and give the government more power to deal with activities that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of the country.

What are some of the important provisions of the UAPA?

1. Definition & Scope:
   1. Section 2(o) – Unlawful Activity: Defines it as any action (spoken, written, or physical) that supports the secession of a part of India, questions its sovereignty, or causes “disaffection” against India.
   2. Section 15 – Terrorist Act: Defines terrorism broadly to include acts intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror in the people using explosives, firearms, or other lethal substances.
   3. Section 1(4) – Extra-territorial Jurisdiction: The Act applies to Indian and foreign nationals even if the crime is committed outside India.
2. Investigation & Procedure: The UAPA modifies standard criminal procedures (found in the CrPC/BNSS) to give more time to investigating agencies:
   1. Section 43D(2) – Extended Detention: Under regular law, a charge sheet must be filed within 60 or 90 days. Under UAPA, this can be extended to 180 days, meaning a suspect can remain in jail for six months without being formally charged.
   2. Section 43D(5) – The “Bail Bar”: This is the most controversial provision. It states that a court cannot grant bail if, after reading the police report, it finds “reasonable grounds” to believe the accusation is prima facie (at first sight) true. In practice, this makes bail the exception and jail the rule.
   3. Section 25 – Seizure of Property: Allows investigating officers to seize property they believe represents “proceeds of terrorism,” subject to approval from senior police or the DG of the NIA.
3. 2019 Amendments (Power to Designate): Prior to 2019, the government could only ban organizations. The amendment introduced a major shift:
   1. Section 35 & 36: Empower the Central Government to designate an individual as a “terrorist” by adding their name to the Fourth Schedule.
   2. Section 43: Empowers officers of the rank of Inspector and above in the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate cases (previously restricted to ACP/DSP rank).
4. Punishment & Penalties: Terrorist acts resulting in death are punishable with death or life imprisonment and fine, while other terrorist acts generally carry a minimum of five years’ imprisonment extendable to life, plus fine.

What is the need/significance of the UAPA?

1. Preventing Secession: The UAPA was originally enacted in 1967 (following the 16th Constitutional Amendment) specifically to address secessionist movements. It gives the state powers to deal with groups or individuals who question India’s territorial integrity or demand secession (e.g. insurgencies in the North-East or the Khalistan movement).
2. Countering “Unlawful” Activities: Unlike the regular penal code, which focuses on crimes already committed, UAPA targets the ideological and organizational roots of activities that threaten the nation’s existence.
3. Defining Modern Terror: It provides a comprehensive definition of a “terrorist act” that includes not just physical violence, but also acts that threaten economic security (like high-quality counterfeit currency) and cybersecurity.
4. Uprooting Networks: It allows the government to ban entire organizations (First Schedule) and, since 2019, designate individuals as terrorists. This is crucial for stopping “lone wolf” attacks and dismantling the leadership of terror modules.
5. FATF Compliance: Amendments in 2013 and 2019 were specifically aimed at bringing Indian law in line with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards to combat money laundering and terror financing.
6. UN Resolutions: The Act helps India implement United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions (like Resolution 1373) which require member states to freeze the assets of designated terrorists and prevent their travel.
7. Extended Timelines: Terrorism cases involve complex international links. The provision allowing 180 days for a charge sheet (instead of 60/90) gives agencies the necessary time to track foreign funding and digital footprints.

What are some of the criticisms of the UAPA?

1. Low Conviction Rates: According to government data shared in Parliament (2025), the conviction rate under UAPA remains very low, often cited around 3%. Between 2019 and 2023, of over 10,000 arrests, only 335 resulted in convictions.
2. Prolonged Incarceration: High-profile cases, like the Bhima Koregaon case or the Delhi Riots conspiracy case, have seen activists and students jailed for over 4-5 years without a trial commencing.
3. Prima Facie Standard: A judge must deny bail if the police’s accusations seem “prima facie true” based only on the prosecution’s evidence. The defense often cannot present its own evidence or cross-examine witnesses during a bail hearing.
4. “Unlawful Activity”: Includes any act that causes “disaffection against India.” Critics argue this can be used to criminalize political speeches, protests, or social media posts.
5. No “Sunset Clause”: Unlike previous anti-terror laws (TADA or POTA) which had to be renewed by Parliament every few years, UAPA is a permanent law with no mandatory periodic review.
6. Weaponisation Against Dissent: Human rights groups (like Amnesty International and the UN) have raised concerns that the law is frequently used to silence:
   1. Journalists: Who report from conflict zones or write critically of government policy.
   2. Human Rights Defenders: Who document state excesses (e.g. the case of Khurram Parvez).
   3. Student Activists: Participating in democratic protests.
7. Encroahment on Federalism: “Police” and “Public Order” are technically State subjects under the Constitution. However, UAPA gives the National Investigation Agency (NIA), a central body, the power to take over cases from state police without their consent, which critics see as an erosion of state autonomy.
8. 2019 Amendment: The 2019 amendment enabling the executive to designate individuals (not just organisations) as “terrorists” is criticized for lacking prior judicial determination and adequate hearing safeguards.

What should be the way forward?

1. “Speedy Trial” as a Right to Bail: The Supreme Court (in cases like KA Najeeb) has established that if a trial is unlikely to conclude soon and the accused has already spent years in jail, the constitutional right to liberty (Article 21) can override the strict bail bar.
2. Surface Scrutiny of Evidence: Courts are now being urged not to blindly accept the prosecution’s “prima facie” narrative. Judges are encouraged to perform a “surface analysis” to see if the evidence actually supports a terror charge or just a minor offense.
3. Specialized Courts: A major recommendation is the creation of dedicated, well-funded Special NIA Courts to ensure that UAPA trials are conducted on a day-to-day basis, preventing decade-long incarcerations without a verdict.
4. Sunset Clauses or Periodic Review: Incorporating a mandatory review by Parliament every few years (similar to the old TADA or POTA) would ensure the law is still necessary and hasn’t become a tool for political overreach.
5. Institutional Accountability: Introducing penalties for officials who willfully file false cases under UAPA would act as a deterrent against “malicious prosecution.”
6. Grounds for Designation: When an individual is designated as a “terrorist” under the 2019 amendment, the government should be required to provide a clear summary of evidence (without compromising national security) to allow for a meaningful legal challenge.