Current Affairs Classes Pre cum Mains 2025, Batch Starts: 11th September 2024 Click Here for more information
Source: The post is based on the article “Dead Wrong – Telangana charging the deceased with UAPA brings to life how the most severe laws are casually misused by govts” published in The Times of India on 21st June 2023
Syllabus: GS 3 – Security Issues.
Relevance: About misuse of stricter laws.
News: In Telangana, police charged the two dead people for two years under the anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This is a classic example of the casual misuse of one of India’s most stringent laws.
About the status of UAPA cases
Analysis of NCRB data by various experts shows the conviction rate of people charged under UAPA is below 3%. Although 97% of those arrested and jailed get acquitted eventually, getting bail is tough. For instance, hardly 16% alone got bail in 2020. Thirteen of 4,690 accused under UAPA between 2018 and 2020 were below 18; 53% were between 18 and 30. The conviction rate for cases is 27%, almost half the convictions in IPC cases.
At the end of 2021, the highest number of cases pending investigation for over 10 years was in Manipur, with 1,597 of 2,041 such cases.
| Read more: Issue of Bail under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) – Explained, Pointwise |
About the sedition cases
UAPA, along with the sedition law and a clutch of state laws, gives police sweeping powers to apply severe procedures for offences that are mostly loosely defined. The misuse of the sedition law prompted the Supreme Court to delay its decision until the government reconsiders. However, the law commission cited national security to seek a stricter sedition law. The debates led the new law minister to indulge in “further consultations” on sedition.
| Supreme Court changes stand; now mere membership of a banned outfit is a crime under UAPA |
SC must not wait indefinitely for the government to reconsider the sedition law. Further, the government should consider the Telangana example as a grave “tendency” to violate rights and reconsider it.
