Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)

15.09.2025

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)

Context

The Delhi High Court recently denied bail to several accused in the February 2020 Delhi riots case, stating the violence was a “premeditated conspiracy.” The accused were charged under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, including Section 16, which prescribes the death penalty for committing a terrorist act.

About UAPA

The UAPA, enacted in 1967, is India’s principal anti-terror law aimed at safeguarding sovereignty and integrity against unlawful and terrorist activities.

Key Provisions:

• Objective: Empower agencies to act against threats to national security.
   
• Unlawful Activities Defined: Includes actions supporting secession, territorial disintegration, or undermining India’s sovereignty.
   
• Designation Powers: Government can declare organisations and individuals as terrorists.
   
• Arrest & Detention: Allows preventive detention to curb potential threats.
   

UAPA and Human Rights

The Act’s stringency has raised human rights concerns:

• Preventive Detention: May compromise liberty and the presumption of innocence.
   
• Confessions to Police: Risk of coercion undermines fair trial principles.
   
• Freedom of Association: Proscription of organisations without transparent due process.
   
• Expression & Dissent: Potential misuse to silence critics and activists.
   
• Privacy Concerns: Surveillance powers risk overreach.
   
• Proportionality: Critics argue UAPA’s wide scope may restrict rights disproportionately.
   

UAPA and Constitution

Article 22 provides safeguards for arrested or detained persons, which often come into tension with UAPA provisions:

• Right to be Informed (Art. 22(1)): Must know reasons for arrest.
   
• Right to Counsel (Art. 22(1)): Access to legal assistance ensured.
   
• Preventive Detention (Art. 22(4)): Permissible only under strict conditions, with advisory board review within 3 months.
   
• Production before Magistrate (Art. 22(2)): Within 24 hours of arrest.
   
• Representation Against Detention: Detainees must be allowed to challenge detention.
   

Challenges

• Stringent Bail Provisions: Courts have termed bail under UAPA as nearly impossible, leading to prolonged incarceration.
   
• Scope for Misuse: Critics point to targeting of dissenters, students, and activists.
   
• Judicial Backlog: Slow trials lead to justice delayed.
   
• Lack of Transparency: Terrorist designations made without detailed reasoning or timely review.
   
• Civil Liberties: Strain between national security and constitutional freedoms.
   

Conclusion

The UAPA remains a critical legal instrument for India’s fight against terrorism but has also sparked debates about liberty vs. security. A balance is needed—ensuring effective anti-terror mechanisms while upholding constitutional rights, judicial oversight, and due process. Reforming safeguards, ensuring proportionality, and reducing misuse risks are essential to align UAPA with both national security imperatives and democratic values.