UAPA Amendment: Security & Human Rights

Amendments to UAPA and NIA Act

The UAPA was amended in 2019 to include ‘individual’ as a terrorist, allowing the government to designate individuals as terrorists. This broadened the scope of the Act beyond organizations. Further, the NIA Act was amended in 2019 to allow the NIA to investigate scheduled offences even if they occur outside India, provided the act has a link to India. The amendments also empower the NIA to attach properties of individuals designated as terrorists. These changes were justified by the government as necessary to address the evolving nature of terrorism and to provide a more effective response to cross-border terrorism.

Prevailing Security Environment

India’s security environment is characterized by several challenges:

• Cross-border Terrorism: Pakistan-sponsored terrorism remains a significant threat, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. Groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba continue to operate.
• Rise of Islamist Extremism: The influence of radical Islamist ideologies, including those propagated by ISIS, poses a threat, leading to instances of lone-wolf attacks and recruitment.
• Left-Wing Extremism (LWE): Naxalite groups continue to operate in several states, particularly in the ‘Red Corridor’ affecting internal security.
• Cyber Terrorism: The increasing use of the internet and social media for radicalization, recruitment, and planning terrorist attacks is a growing concern.
• Emerging Threats: The use of drones for cross-border smuggling of arms and narcotics is a new and evolving threat.

According to data from the Ministry of Home Affairs (as of knowledge cutoff 2023), there has been a decline in terrorist incidents in Jammu and Kashmir since the abrogation of Article 370, but the threat remains. The NIA has registered over 300 cases since its inception, demonstrating its active role in counter-terrorism efforts.

Opposition to UAPA by Human Rights Organizations

Human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have consistently opposed the UAPA, citing several concerns:

• Vague Definitions: The Act’s definition of ‘unlawful activity’ is broad and vague, allowing for arbitrary application and potential misuse against legitimate dissent.
• Low Threshold for Designation as Terrorist: The ease with which individuals can be designated as terrorists raises concerns about due process and the potential for targeting political opponents or activists.
• Prolonged Detention: The Act allows for prolonged detention without charge, violating fundamental rights to liberty and fair trial.
• Lack of Transparency: The process of designating individuals as terrorists lacks transparency, making it difficult to challenge the designation.
• Impact on Civil Liberties: The Act’s provisions can stifle freedom of speech and expression, as individuals may be hesitant to express dissenting views for fear of being labeled as terrorists.

Case Study: Bhima Koregaon Case (2018) – The arrests of several activists and academics in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence highlighted concerns about the misuse of UAPA. Critics argued that the Act was used to suppress dissent and target individuals critical of the government. The prolonged detention and lack of concrete evidence in the case fueled the debate over the Act’s provisions.

The organizations argue that existing laws, such as the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, are sufficient to deal with terrorism, and that the UAPA is unnecessary and disproportionate. They advocate for the repeal of the Act and the strengthening of existing legal safeguards to protect fundamental rights.