ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 19 April. Click Here for more information.
ForumIAS Answer Writing Focus Group (AWFG) for Mains 2024 commencing from 24th June 2024. The Entrance Test for the program will be held on 28th April 2024 at 9 AM. To know more about the program visit: https://forumias.com/blog/awfg2024
Source: The Hindu
Synopsis:
The criminal justice system needs to take note of the Delhi High Court’s recent judgment on ‘defining terrorism’. The judgment can help in preventing the misuse of anti-terrorism laws like UAPA.
Background:
- The Delhi High Court granted bail to Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Tanha on 15th June 2021. They were imprisoned for over a year in connection with the riots in North-east Delhi and the anti-CAA-NRC protests under the UAPA act.
- The 133-page bail order brings into limelight another instance of misuse of anti-terrorism laws like Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Misuse of Laws:
- In the period 2015-2019, as many as 7,840 persons were arrested under the Draconian UAPA but only 155 were convicted by the trial courts.
Factors behind misuse:
- First, the prosecution had unjustifiably invoked provisions of TADA ‘with an oblique motive of depriving the accused persons from getting bail.
- Second, there is no universal definition of the term ‘terrorism’ either in India or at the international level.
- Section 15 of UAPA merely defines a terrorist act in extremely wide and vague words. It states that any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people is a terrorist act.
- Third, there is vagueness in many provisions of UAPA that gives a scope for misuse.
- For instance, UAPA states that a terrorist act can be committed by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause death or injuries. Here the meaning of any other means is not clear.
About the Delhi High Court’s recent judgement:
- The court held that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) protests cannot be covered by the expression ‘any other means’ under UAPA.
- A general word used in any statute after specific words should be interpreted in the context of specific words.
- In Yaqoob Abdul Razzak Memon (2013), the Supreme Court said that terrorist acts can range from threats to actual assassinations, kidnappings, airline hijacking, car bombs, explosions, use of chemical, biological, nuclear weapons etc.
- Since the three student activists did not do any of these things, the Delhi HC could not be convinced of their involvement in any terrorist act.
- Through an authoritative and enlightened bail order entirely based on the apex court judgments, the court reminded the Delhi police of the true meaning of a terrorist act.
Way Ahead:
- One can hope that our police will be far more cautious in charging people under black laws such as UAPA, the NSA, etc. after the recent Delhi HC judgement.
- Further, we must understand that no anti-terror law can really end the problem of terrorism. Our focus should be on creating a truly just, egalitarian and non-oppressive society. This would be far more effective in combating terrorism.
