The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Indian Constitution: An Analysis of the Constitutional Framework and the Impact on Individual Rights

A committee appointed by the National Integration Council recommended an Act be approved by the Central Government in 1967 in order to prevent individuals or organizations from acting illegally in a way that might compromise the integrity and sovereignty of the nation. Both the POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act), 2002, and the TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, have been superseded by the Act. The history of India makes it abundantly evident that there have been numerous acts of terror throughout the years. The terrorist assaults on the Parliament in 2002 and the Mumbai attacks are two examples of them. An attack of this kind would surely cause dread among India’s populace, given the country’s size. Many Activists, minorities, and people from marginalized sections were arrested under the label of the Act and recently the writer and activist Arundhati Roy was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967. The criticism against the Act is that since the definition of unlawful activities is vague the freedom to dissent and criticize the government is also challenged under the Act. The Government can use the provisions of the Act against those who speak against it and this may negatively impact the democratic principles of the country. The Act allows prolonged detention and obtaining bail is a very difficult task for the accused and this violates the right to a speedy trial. The Constitutional validity of the Act and the amendments made to it need to be discussed and the cases regarding are still pending.