The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear direct challenges to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), advising petitioners to first seek redress in the jurisdictional high courts. This directive reflects the court’s stance on respecting the procedural hierarchy in judicial reviews, especially in cases involving intricate questions of law concerning national security and individual rights.
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, leading the bench which also included Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, emphasized the capability of high courts to handle these matters initially. “We are very clear that we will not become the first court of adjudication. Let the petitioners go to respective high courts first,” Justice Khanna stated during the proceedings.
This decision comes in the wake of multiple petitions filed against the 2019 amendments to the UAPA, notably challenging the enhanced powers granted to the Central Government to designate individuals as “terrorists.” Critics argue that these amendments, particularly to Section 35 of the UAPA, allow for arbitrary labeling without sufficient procedural safeguards, potentially infringing on fundamental rights including equality, freedom of speech, and the right to life.
The petitions contend that the amendments undermine due process and lack clear criteria for such designations, thereby granting the government unchecked authority based on mere suspicion. This has raised significant concerns about violations of natural justice and the potential for arbitrary governmental actions.
The court’s directive also aligns with the views of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, who noted that several similar cases are already pending before various high courts across the country, including in Delhi, Gauhati, Kerala, and Tripura. “It is always good to have the opinion of a high court before the matter reaches the highest court of the land,” Mehta remarked, supporting the Supreme Court’s decision.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, representing one of the petitioners, along with other legal representatives, were instructed to redirect their challenges to the appropriate high courts. The court granted the petitioners the liberty to withdraw their appeals from the Supreme Court to pursue them in high courts, ensuring that the existing legal framework is fully utilized before escalating matters to the apex court.
