New Delhi: The Supreme Court made a significant ruling on Friday stating that simply being a member of a banned association can now be considered an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. This decision has lowered the standard for who can be prosecuted under this strict anti-terrorism law.
Previously, there were distinctions made between active and passive membership of an unlawful association, as well as the differentiation between advocating for violence and inciting it. However, a three-judge bench led by Justice MR Shah overruled these precedents on this aspect.
Justices MR Shah, CT Ravikumar, and Sanjay Karol, sitting on the three-judge bench, confirmed the constitutional validity of Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA. The bench announced that this provision is in line with the fundamental right to free speech, as they read out the operative portion of the ruling.
In 2011, the Supreme Court's two-judge bench, consisting of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, ruled in 'Arup Bhuyan v State of Assam' that for a person's association with an unlawful organization to be considered "membership," it must be active, requiring actual incitement or the act of committing violence.
If the threshold for membership is lower and does not require actual involvement, possession of literature or expression of sympathy to the cause can be considered as evidence of "membership" even without any actual involvement in the crime.