The Delhi High Court, on Monday, directed the Centre to respond to a series of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, overseeing the case, scheduled the next hearing for May, giving the government time to prepare its affidavit.
The petitions, previously handled by the Supreme Court, include challenges by Sajal Awasthi, the Association for Protection Of Civil Rights (APCR), and Amitabha Pande. These challenges focus on amendments to the UAPA that empower the state to designate individuals as terrorists, seize properties, and impose strict bail restrictions. Additionally, the Foundation for Media Professionals has contested the UAPA provision that criminalizes membership in associations deemed unlawful by the government.
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma committed to filing the Centre’s detailed response. However, he questioned the locus standi of the Foundation for Media Professionals in challenging Section 10 of the UAPA, noting that the Supreme Court had previously addressed and dismissed similar challenges.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the foundation, argued that the law has significantly affected journalists, many of whom are currently incarcerated under the UAPA. He stressed the importance of addressing these legal issues in the high court, as directed by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in transferring these petitions to the high court, highlighted that such complex legal matters are best examined by high courts initially. This procedural move came after the top court issued notice to the Centre in 2019 following challenges to the constitutional validity of the 2019 Amendment to the UAPA.
Critics of the amendment argue that it violates fundamental rights, including equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and liberty. They contend that the amendments allow the government to curb dissent under the guise of fighting terrorism, which is counterproductive in a democratic society. Additionally, the APCR has raised concerns that the amendments infringe upon the right to reputation and dignity as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, absent proper due process.
