New Delhi, Feb 4 (PTI) – The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain petitions challenging amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which empower the state to designate individuals as terrorists and seize their properties. Instead, the apex court directed the Delhi High Court to examine the matter, asserting that it could not act as the court of "first instance."
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan emphasized the necessity of high courts addressing such issues before they reach the Supreme Court. "We cannot be the court of first instance… A lot of problems arise, sometimes issues are left by your side (petitioner), sometimes by their side (Union), then we have to refer to a larger bench. Let it be first decided by the high court," the bench stated.
The Supreme Court had earlier issued a notice to the Centre on September 6, 2019, regarding petitions that questioned the constitutional validity of the 2019 UAPA amendments. The bench also noted that other high courts could review fresh petitions challenging the provisions.
The pleas were filed by petitioner Sajal Awasthi, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), and Amitabha Pande. Senior advocate C U Singh, representing one of the petitioners, requested the Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that it had been pending for five years. He further suggested transferring the case to the Delhi High Court due to logistical challenges faced by the petitioners, many of whom were retired bureaucrats.
"In our case, we are all retired eminent bureaucrats. We filed before the Supreme Court, and we would find it inconvenient to get representation before multiple high courts," Singh contended.
Accepting the argument, Chief Justice Khanna directed the listing of the petitions before the Delhi High Court.
Constitutional Concerns Over UAPA Amendments
Petitioner Sajal Awasthi argued that the amendments infringe upon fundamental rights, including the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and liberty. The petition contended that the law grants the government excessive powers under the pretext of countering terrorism, indirectly restricting the right to dissent, which is crucial in a democratic society.The amendments to the UAPA were passed by Parliament on August 2, 2019, and received the President’s assent on August 9, 2019. The revised law also includes provisions for imposing a travel ban on individuals designated as terrorists.
The APCR, in its separate Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed through advocate Fauzia Shakil, argued that the amendments violate the fundamental right to reputation and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition asserted that declaring an individual as a terrorist without granting them a fair hearing was an unjust and disproportionate measure.
"Notifying an individual as a terrorist without giving him an opportunity of being heard violates the individual's right to reputation and dignity, which is a facet of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution," the plea stated.
The NGO further argued that being designated a terrorist, even if later de-notified, results in an irreversible stigma that permanently tarnishes an individual's reputation.
Challenge to Sections 35 and 36 of UAPA
The petitioners specifically challenged Sections 35 and 36 of the amended Act, arguing that these provisions allow the government to designate an individual as a terrorist solely based on its "belief," without providing a clear definition or criteria."A person is never informed of the grounds of his notification, so the remedy of challenging his notification under Section 36, as provided for in the Act, is rendered practically otiose (useless)," the plea stated.
The petitioners urged the court to declare these sections unconstitutional, emphasizing that such an arbitrary designation without due process contradicts the principles of fairness and justice.
With the Supreme Court directing the Delhi High Court to handle the matter, the challenge to the controversial UAPA amendments is set to be examined at a more detailed level before any potential escalation to the apex court.
Last updated by a enewsx: