CJI Khanna remarked, “A lot of problems arise. Sometimes issues are left by your side and sometimes by the other side; then we have to refer to a larger bench and it becomes an issue. We will have it before the High Court.”
NEW DELHI: Today, 4th Feb: The Supreme Court of India has clarified that High Courts can continue hearing petitions challenging the amendments made to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
This decision was made by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan.
During the hearing, the Bench observed that the Supreme Court should not be the first court to examine such issues unless there are exceptional circumstances.
CJI Khanna remarked, “A lot of problems arise. Sometimes issues are left by your side and sometimes by the other side; then we have to refer to a larger bench and it becomes an issue. We will have it before the High Court.”
Based on this observation, the Supreme Court passed an order stating that High Courts are free to proceed with cases pending before them related to the UAPA amendments.
Several petitions challenging the provisions of the UAPA have been pending before the Supreme Court since 2019. Among the petitioners are an individual, Sajal Awasthi, and a non-governmental organization (NGO) named the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR).
“In our case, we are all retired distinguished bureaucrats. We approached the Supreme Court, and it would be burdensome for us to seek representation in multiple high courts,” Singh stated.
Agreeing to the submission, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) directed that the pleas be listed before the Delhi High Court.
The plea condemned the designation of a person as a terrorist based solely on the government’s belief, deeming it unreasonable, unjust, unfair, excessive, disproportionate, and a violation of due process.
It further argued that even if a person is later removed from the terrorist list, the label leaves a permanent stigma that damages their reputation irreparably.
The petitions specifically challenge Sections 35 and 36 of the UAPA, which were amended in 2019. These provisions allow the government to label any individual as a “terrorist.” The APCR has argued that such labeling can cause lifelong stigma and is a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
With this order, the High Courts will now have the authority to hear and decide petitions challenging the UAPA amendments.
Previous Hearing:
Earlier, The court granted petitioners the option to withdraw their cases from the Supreme Court and pursue their challenges in the high courts, making it clear that the high courts would address the petitions before them.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, supported this perspective, noting that multiple petitions are already pending in high courts across Delhi, Gauhati, Kerala, and Tripura.
Mehta stated,
“It is always good to have the opinion of a high court before the matter reaches the highest court of the land,”
The bench agreed, instructing the lawyers representing various petitioners to pursue their cases in the relevant high courts. Senior advocate Arvind Datar represented one of the petitioners during the hearing.
The petitions primarily challenge the 2019 amendments to the UAPA, which introduced significant changes, particularly to Section 35. This amendment empowers the Central Government to designate individuals as “terrorists” under Schedule IV of the Act a power that was previously limited to organizations.
The lead petition, filed by Sajal Awasthi in 2019, contends that the amendments undermine due process. It argues that Sections 35 and 36 of the UAPA do not establish clear criteria or procedures for arrest, allowing the government unchecked authority to label individuals as terrorists based on mere suspicion or belief.
In September 2019, the Supreme Court admitted Awasthi’s petition and issued a notice to the Union government. On Tuesday, as Awasthi’s lawyer was unavailable, the bench requested that he return with appropriate instructions regarding the petition’s withdrawal on the next date.
Case Name :
SAJAL AWASTHI Versus UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 1076/2019 and Connected Matters
