During the UAPA challenge hearing, a petitioner told the Delhi High Court that even criticism of an AI Summit could lead to jail under the anti-terror law. The court is examining whether key provisions of UAPA violate free speech and constitutional rights.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday began hearing a batch of petitions that have challenged several important provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a law often used in cases related to terrorism and national security. The matter was taken up by a Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.
A total of four petitions are pending before the High Court. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for one of the petitioners, the Foundation for Media Professionals. He explained that the organisation has challenged Sections 2(1)(o)(iii), 43D(4), the proviso to Section 43D(5), and Sections 35 and 36 of the UAPA.
ALSO READ: BREAKING| Delhi High Court Allows PFI to Challenge UAPA Ban
Section 2(1)(o)(iii) defines “unlawful activity” and includes actions that cause or are intended to cause disaffection against India. Section 43D(4) bars the grant of anticipatory bail in UAPA cases. The proviso to Section 43D(5) states that bail cannot be granted if, after examining the case diary, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true.
Sections 35 and 36 deal with the power of the government to designate a person or organisation as a terrorist or terrorist organisation.
Arguing against Section 2(1)(o)(iii), Datar submitted that the provision is extremely wide, vague and arbitrary. He said that such a broad definition of “unlawful activity” can create fear among journalists and others who criticise government policies. According to him, even legitimate criticism could be misused under the law.
“There are no boundaries, no limit now. A journalist saying the AI-summit is going wrong may be jailed. At the heart of it [the UAPA] is that a journalist is under the constant fear that any kind of criticism will amount to disaffection towards India. I may criticise a mining policy. It may show India in a bad light, but as long as I am not inciting violence or promoting violence, that’s not unlawful, it’s democracy,”
he said.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Slams 2-Year Custody Without Chargesheet, Grants Bail to UAPA Accused
He further argued that merely expressing dissent or criticism of government actions cannot be treated as a crime unless it involves incitement to violence.
On the issue of anticipatory bail, Datar told the Court that Section 43D(4), which bars anticipatory bail in UAPA cases, is unconstitutional. He pointed out that similar offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita allow courts to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, he argued, the absolute bar under UAPA violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law.
He also challenged the proviso to Section 43D(5), which restricts the grant of bail if the case diary shows a prima facie case against the accused. Datar submitted that courts have consistently held since 1897 that case diaries cannot be treated as evidence. According to him, relying on a case diary to deny bail goes against established legal principles.
“A case diary can only be used to contradict the police officer,”
he said.
ALSO READ: Transferred Judge Returns to Hear 2020 Delhi Riots UAPA Conspiracy Case from July 1
After hearing arguments for some time, the Bench observed that the matter requires detailed consideration and posted the case for further hearing on March 16.
The petitions raise significant constitutional questions about freedom of speech, personal liberty, and the balance between national security and civil rights. The outcome of this case is expected to have an important impact on how UAPA provisions are interpreted and applied, especially in cases involving journalists, activists and individuals accused of unlawful activities.
Click Here to Read More Reports On UAPA
