Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna stated that high courts are capable of handling UAPA challenges initially. He emphasized that the Supreme Court should not be the first forum for such cases. The bench advised petitioners to approach the respective high courts before seeking intervention from the apex court. This decision reinforces the legal process and judicial hierarchy in handling UAPA cases.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court declined to entertain several petitions questioning the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), insisting that petitioners first seek recourse in the appropriate high courts.
The petitions raise concerns about the balance between national security and individual rights.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna stated that high courts are competent to adjudicate these issues initially and emphasized that the Supreme Court should not be the first forum for these cases.
The bench, which included Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, remarked,
“We are very clear that we will not become the first court of adjudication. Let the petitioners go to their respective high courts first,”
They added that the high courts are already handling similar petitions and are well-equipped to evaluate the law’s validity.
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.
Another petition, filed by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, challenges the amendment as violating fundamental rights, including equality, freedom of speech, and the right to life.
Also Read: Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal of Petitions Contesting Constitutionality of UAPA
It argues that allowing the government to unilaterally designate individuals as terrorists without judicial scrutiny breaches principles of natural justice and leads to arbitrary actions.
A third petition, submitted by retired civil servant Amitabha Pande in 2021, emphasizes the lack of procedural safeguards for those accused under the UAPA.
This petition highlights discrepancies between individuals designated as terrorists in Schedule IV and those who are not formally labeled but face trial under the Act. It also raises concerns regarding restrictions on anticipatory bail and seeks compensation for individuals wrongfully incarcerated under the UAPA who are later acquitted.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
