Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
Why in news?
The Supreme Court recently expanded the interpretation of a "terrorist act" under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, ruling that it extends beyond conventional weapons to include acts threatening national integrity, such as disrupting essential supplies through protests or "chakka jams."
How the SC Expanded the Definition of Terror?
- Traditional view: Terrorism was earlier understood mainly as acts of extreme violence—bombings, killings, armed attacks.
- New interpretation: The SC clarified that terror under Section 15 of UAPA is not limited to physical violence. It can also cover:
- Disruption of essential services (transport, communication, healthcare, etc.)
- Threats to economic stability or national security
- Acts that destabilize civic life or create widespread fear, even without bloodshed.
Key Implications
- Broader scope of UAPA: This interpretation makes it easier for authorities to apply UAPA charges in cases beyond traditional terror attacks.
- Impact on protests: Critics argue this risks conflating dissent or protest with terrorism, since disruption of civic life could be interpreted broadly.
- Bail challenges: Expanded definition means longer incarceration without trial, as bail under UAPA is already very stringent.
- Legal debates: Raises questions about balancing national security vs. civil liberties.
Download Pdf
