About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

3 Issue 1 Int'l J.L. Mgmt. & Human. 1 (2020)

handle is hein.journals/ijlmhs3 and id is 1 raw text is: www.ijlmh.com                                      ©2019 IJLMH I Volume 3, Issue 1 | ISSN: 2581-5369
An Analysis on the validity of the Unlawful Acts
(Prevention) Act
Arkadeep Pal
Alliance School of Law, Alliance University
Karnataka, India
ABSTRACT:
The purpose of this research paper is to analyse and examine the validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of
1967. This paper will describe in detail the background to the legislating of the UAPA 1967, and go on to further discuss
the arbitrary provisions of the act. With the help of landmark case-laws, the paper will attempt to determine whether the
provisions of the UAPA Act of 1967 are valid, both constitutionally and ethically. A comparison between the various
detention and terrorism laws of other sovereign states will be discussed in this paper. The paper will further attempt,
through case studies, try and establish how the act suppress free thinking, and criminalises dissent. In conclusion, the
researcher will try and answer the two research questions of the paper and give his own suggestions.
Keywords: UAPA; Dissent; Free Speech; Arbitrary; Constitutional; Ethical
I. INTRODUCTION
On the 24 of July, 2019, the Bharatiya Janta Party led NDA government passed the Unlawful Acts
(Prevention) Amendment. According to government, the amendment to the UAPA Act will help the
government and intelligence agencies to remain four steps ahead of terrorists and non-state actors
The amendment to the act brings two distinct changes to the original text of the UAPA Bill; the changes are as
follows -
Firstly, it gives the National Investigation Agency of India complete autonomy to conduct its operation in any
state of the country without informing the State or local authorities. Secondly, it gives the Central Government
almost unrestricted power to add or remove names of individuals into the terrorist watchlist without reasonable
justification.
Critics of this controversial act contend that the provisions of this statute violate the - integrity of the federal
structure of India, and constitutionally guaranteed fundamental principles under Article 14 and Article 22 of the
Indian Constitution. Clauses such as Section 35 (2) of the UAPA amendment, give the government a free hand
in designating any individual as a terrorist, and it can be argued that this provision of the now amended bill can
be used to officially detain political opponents.
Furthermore, it has provisions to detain an individual for 2 years at length without judicial appeal, which
violates the principles as laid down in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and contravenes the landmark
judicial precedent as laid down in - DK Basu, Ashok K. Johari v/ State of West Bengal, State of Uttar Pradesh

International Journal of Law Management & Humanities

Page 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most