Issuing notice on two separate petitions, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Ashok Bhushan sought a response from the Centre on the new provisions added to the amended Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the new law introduced by the Centre which allows it to designate any individual as a terrorist on a mere belief. Under this law, the Government had recently designated four persons as terrorists, namely Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Maulana Masood Azhar, Lashkar-e-Taiba founder Hafiz Muhammed Saeed, and two notorious terrorists Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Dawood Ibrahim.
Issuing notice on two separate petitions, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Ashok Bhushan sought a response from the Centre on the new provisions added to the amended Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
The petitions filed by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) and an individual Sajal Awasthi said that the provision had the potential of being misused as it failed to prescribe criteria for declaring an individual a terrorist.
Senior advocates Shekhar Naphade and Huzefa Ahmadi informed the Court that the new law posed an attack on the constitutional rights of individuals pertaining to personal liberty under Article 21 and free speech under Article 19(1)(a). The bench said that it will examine the issues put forth by the petitions.
The two provisions amended under the UAPA were Sections 35 and 36. While Section 35 allowed Government to classify even an individual as a terrorist, Section 36 prescribed that an individual could be a terrorist if he commits, prepares or promotes a terrorist. Earlier, only organisations could be termed as terrorists under the Act. Additionally, the petition argues that the government can keep the sword hanging over any individual’s free speech by threatening to use this law against dissenters or political opponents.
Finding the language of the law vague, the petition by APCR said, “Notifying an individual as a terrorist without giving him an opportunity of being heard violates the individual’s right to reputation and dignity which is a facet of Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.” Once designated as a terrorist, even if the person is subsequently de-notified, the stigma remains forever and tarnishes personal reputation for life.
The petition filed by advocate Fauzia Shakil, pointed out the further lacuna in the Act as it does not specify whether the declaration of a person as an individual is upon conviction or mere registration of a crime. The words used in the amended law are “If it (Government) believes that such organization or individual is involved in terrorism.”
This gives Centre unfettered power, said the petition. What makes the provision draconian is the fact that there is no oral hearing for the said individual. Any challenge to the notification declaring an individual a terrorist is to be challenged before the Government, which will review its own decision.
HISTORY SHEET
|
| Under this law, the Government had recently designated four persons as terrorists, namely Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Maulana Masood Azhar, Lashkar-e-Taiba founder Hafiz Muhammed Saeed, notorious terrorists Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Dawood Ibrahim |
| Issuing notice on two separate petitions, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Ashok Bhushan sought a response from the Centre |
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}