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 post is based on the article “Supreme Court changes stand; now mere membership of a banned outfit is a crime under UAPA” published in The Hindu on 24th March 2023
What is the News?
The Supreme Court has ruled that even a mere membership of a banned association is sufficient to constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.
What is the ruling given by the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court has restored the Doctrine of “guilt by association” in criminal jurisprudence in India as it overruled several of its 2011 judgments and declared that mere membership of a banned organization will be a crime under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA),1967.
The court basically upheld the constitutional validity and the rationale of Section 10(a)(i), of the UAPA Act which makes continued membership of a banned organization a crime punishable with a jail term of up to two years.
The court also referred to Article 19(4) of the Constitution which mandated that the citizens’ right to form unions or associations was subject to the power of the state to make laws to impose “reasonable restrictions” in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality.
What did the earlier rulings of the Supreme Court say on this?
In 2011, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in ‘Arup Bhuyan v State of Assam’ had said that a person’s association with an unlawful organization must be an active “membership” which required actual incitement to violence or the act of committing violence.
In this case, the petitioner had challenged similar provisions in the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) which are now repealed. However, UAPA, the anti-terror legislation that succeeded TADA, retained the same provision.
Several High Courts and even subsequent benches of the SC relied on the principle in the Arup Bhuyan case to hold that membership meant active membership and not just “mere membership” without any proof of incitement to violence.
