SC refuses to hear UAPA amendments challenge, refers matter to Delhi HC
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear the challenge to amendments in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which grants the state the power to designate individuals as terrorists and seize their properties. A bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar, and K V Viswanathan stated that it could not act as the court of "first instance" and referred the matter to the Delhi High Court.
"We cannot be the court of first instance… A lot of problems arise, sometimes issues are left by your side (petitioner), sometimes by their side (Union), then we have to refer to a larger bench. Let it be first decided by the high court," the bench remarked. The court clarified that other high courts could also address any new petitions related to the UAPA amendments.
The pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the 2019 amendment to the UAPA were filed by Sajal Awasthi, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), and Amitabha Pande. The bench noted that complex legal issues often arise in such cases, making it more suitable for high courts to examine them first.
Senior advocate C U Singh, representing one of the petitioners, urged the court to hear the matter, noting that the Supreme Court had issued notices on the issue five years ago. Singh also argued that it would be more convenient for the petitioners, many of whom are retired bureaucrats, to have the matter transferred to the Delhi High Court, rather than dealing with multiple high courts.
The CJI, agreeing to this submission, directed that the pleas be listed before the Delhi High Court for further proceedings. Awasthi, in his plea, contended that the amended provisions violated citizens' fundamental rights, such as the right to equality, freedom of speech, and expression, as well as the right to life and liberty. The plea argued that the amendments allowed the government to impose restrictions on the right to dissent under the guise of curbing terrorism, which could be detrimental to the development of a democratic society.
The amendments to the UAPA, which were passed by Parliament on August 2, 2019, and received the President's assent on August 9 of the same year, also introduced provisions for imposing travel bans on individuals once they are declared terrorists.
APCR, in a separate public interest litigation (PIL) filed through advocate Fauzia Shakil, argued that the amendments infringed on the fundamental right to reputation and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, without adhering to substantive and procedural due process. The NGO's plea emphasized that labeling someone as a terrorist without affording them an opportunity to be heard violated their right to reputation and dignity, both of which are integral to the right to life and personal liberty.
The petitioners condemned the process of designating a person as a terrorist based solely on the government's belief, without a proper hearing, describing it as unreasonable, unjust, and disproportionate. The petition also noted that a person who is declared a terrorist, even if subsequently de-notified, carries the lifelong stigma of such a designation, tarnishing their reputation permanently.
Further, the petition pointed out that Section 35 of the amended Act did not specify when an individual could be designated as a terrorist. It argued that the government's arbitrary and excessive use of the power to label someone a terrorist, without informing them of the grounds for the designation, rendered the remedy under Section 36 of the Act essentially ineffective. The petitioners sought that Sections 35 and 36 of the UAPA be declared unconstitutional.
With PTI inputs