UAPA disproportionately targets religious, ethnic minorities: Activist

Umar Sharieef | NT

Bengaluru: Discussing the Supreme Court’s decision in granting bail to activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferriera accused in connection with the Elgaar Parishad case, members from People’s Union for Civil Liberties said the bail order has significant implications for bail jurisprudence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, UAPA, in the framework of criminal law.

The members highlighted the top court’s bail-granting powers under the UAPA, which flows from the Zahood Ahmad Watali judgment.

The Supreme Cour t passed a judgment, in which it upheld the order of the Kerala High Court, which granted bail to an accused charged under the UAPA, setting a new precedent.

The order, which was passed in 2019 in the NIA vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, has been cited to the accused under the UAPA Act while denying bail to the accused at any stage of trial claiming that the allegations against the accused are prima facie true.

Why UAPA is a draconian act

While the members cited and discussed a few cases to justify why they call the UAPA Act draconian, they also heaved a sigh of relief over the release of these two activists, while also saying the pendency of the bail of the other nine activists shows the struggle is incomplete.

“It is the tip of the iceberg of the nature of the political repression in the country”, said Radhika Chitkara, assistant professor of Law at NLSIU.

She added that the issue of bail conditions on which accused are charged under UAPA emerging over the past years including the Sudha Bharadwaj, on who the National Investigation Agency (NIA) laid out bail conditions, in which it asked the 60-year-old activist to surrender her passport and submit a bond of Rs 50,000 and forcing her to stay in Mumbai for further investigations, deserves attention.

“It lays down special procedure to prosecute the offences and we know it is a law that historically has disproportionately targeted the religious minorities, ethnic minorities, and the dissenters and it continues the legacy of the TADA Act”, she said speaking on why UAPA is a draconian act.

The discussions involving the law professionals also said the act doesn’t criminalise one individual or activity but an association.

She further went on to say that this act also talks about unlawful associations and terrorist organisations, on which she said some substances overlap between these two.

“What makes them apart is the procedure that is adopted for the declaration”, she added.

She also said there will be a tribunal to review the declaration for the unlawful association but there is no review process for the terrorist organisation.

“The ambit of criminalisation is shown very wide and arbitrarily such that anybody can be bought under its fort”, she noted.