India News

Designating individuals as terrorists: SC seeks Centre’s reply on UAPA amendment

Published

7 years ago

September 6, 2019

Designating individuals as terrorists: SC seeks Centre’s reply on UAPA amendment

The Supreme Court today – Friday, Sep 6 – issued notice to Centre, seeking its reply on the amendments to anti-terror law Unlawful Activities Prevention Act that empower the government to designate any individual as terrorist.

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Ashok Bhushan issued the notice on petitions filed by Sajal Awasthi and NGO Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) which said the amended law allowed the government to freely encroach upon the fundamental rights of dignity, free speech, dissent and reputation.

The petitions said the UAPA Amendment Act of 2019, passed by the Parliament, conferred the Centre with “discretionary, unfettered and unbound powers” to categorise a person as a terrorist – powers which could be misused even to curb dissent.

The UAPA Amendment Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on July 24 and in the Rajya Sabha on August 2 amid criticism by the opposition parties and civil liberties lawyers. The Bill empowers the government to declare individuals as terrorists as well as to seize their properties and impose a travel ban on them. The Bill received President Ram Nath Kovind’s assent on August 9.

Before this amendment, in line with the legal presumption of an individual is innocent until proven guilty, an individual who was convicted in a terror case was legally referred to as a terrorist, while those suspected of being involved in terrorist activities are referred to as terror accused. The amended law does not clarify the standard of proof required to establish that an individual is involved or is likely to be involved in terrorist activities.

It also does not require the filing of cases or arresting individuals while designating them as terrorists.

Also Read: Chandrayaan 2 set for Historic Landing: PM with 60 students to watch Live

Home Minister Amit Shah while discussing the Bill in the Rajya Sabha had said, “A four-level scrutiny has been provided in the amendment and no human rights will be violated.” He also said that declaring individuals as terrorists is required as they float different organisations once an institution is banned. He ignored the questions about why this should be done arbitrarily.

The law could now be used by the government to bring disrepute on a person, and even worse, rob him or her liberty. The heavy burden to prove the entire government machinery wrong would lie on the person.

The petitions challenge the validity of Sections 35 and 36 of the UAPA, as amended by the UAPA Amendment Act, 2019. “The new Section 35 of the UAPA Act, 1967 empowers the Central government to categorise any individual as ‘terrorist’ and add name of such a person in Schedule 4 of the Act,” said Awasthi.

The petitioner NGO contends that such labelling will lead to a lifelong stigma. It would also be against the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

“The amendment infringes upon the right to reputation and dignity which is a fundamental right under Article 21, without substantive and procedural due process. 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 petition states.

Awasthi’s petition says that the UAPA amendment is contrary to the Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. It states: “It is well-settled and established position of law that dignity and liberty of an individual is inalienable under the regime of our controlled constitution and that the State is under an obligation to preserve the same. Though there have been certain instances wherein the State has adopted a contrary approach to the above-stated fact and it is pertinent to note here that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 is an example of such an encroachment upon the Fundamental Rights.”

Also Read: Chidambaram in Tihar Jail as ED did not take his custody after asking for it all along

The petitions object to labelling an individual as a terrorist without granting him a hearing and following due process. Further, the plea goes on to submit that conferring of such “discretionary, unfettered and unbound” powers upon the Government, so as to notify an individual as a terrorist, is also against the right to equality as enshrined in the Constitution under Article 14.

If an individual is labelled a terrorist even before the commencement of the trial or application of judicial mind, it would be violative of the requirement of following a procedure established by law, Awasthi’s plea adds. It would also be violative of an individual’s right to reputation. Further, this lack of opportunity of hearing, according to the petitioner, will have a direct and adverse effect on the Right to Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Threatens right to dissent

It is also the petitioner’s case that the amendment seeks to curtail this right to dissent under the garb of curtailing terrorism. “The right of dissent is a part and parcel of fundamental right to free speech and expression and therefore, cannot be abridged in any circumstances except for mentioned in Article 19 (2). The UAPA, 2019 empowers the ruling government, under the garb of curbing terrorism, to impose indirect restriction on right of dissent which is detrimental for our developing democratic society,” it said.

“The UAPA, 2019 empowers the ruling government, under the garb of curbing terrorism, to impose indirect restriction on right of dissent which is detrimental for our developing democratic society. India is a democracy and every citizen of India has a fundamental right to dissent but presence of draconian law and provisions as contained in Section 35 and 36 of the UAPA, 2019 directly encroach upon the same.”

Right to reputation

The petition said the right to reputation was an intrinsic part of fundamental right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution and tagging an individual as “terrorist” even before the commencement of trial or any application of judicial mind over it, did not amount to following the ‘procedure established by law’.

Instead of preserving the dignity of an individual, the government sought to encroach upon it, the petition said.

Up Next

74 yr old Andhra woman sets world record by delivering twins through IVF

Don't Miss

Chidambaram in Tihar Jail as ED did not take his custody after asking for it all along

India News

Four militants killed as rival Naga groups clash in Manipur village

Four militants were killed in a gunfight between suspected rival Naga groups at Taodaijang village in Manipur’s Noney district on Wednesday.

Published

4 hours ago

November 4, 2026

APNLive Desk

At least four militants were killed in a gunfight between suspected rival Naga militant groups in Manipur’s Noney district on Wednesday, November 4.

The exchange of fire took place at Taodaijang village in the Khoupum area of the Naga-majority district. According to officials, the cadres involved were suspected to belong to rival Naga militant outfits, including the Zeliangrong United Front-Jenchui (ZUF-J) and the Zeliangrong United Front-Kamson (ZUF-K).

Initial reports indicated that the gunfight continued for several hours, leaving three cadres of ZUF-J and one cadre of ZUF-K dead.

The bodies of the deceased militants were subsequently recovered by local residents.

Residents appeal to armed groups to stop firing

Following the gunfight, local residents, including women, reached the spot in an attempt to prevent further violence between the rival groups.

They also used a public address system to appeal to the armed cadres to stop firing and prevent the situation from escalating further.

Further details about the circumstances surrounding the clash were awaited.

Manipur government reviews security situation

In a separate development, Manipur Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh directed senior security officials to identify active armed groups suspected of involvement in recent incidents of violence in the state.

The directive excluded groups engaged in peace talks with the state government.

The Chief Minister issued the instructions during a review meeting on the state’s law and order situation on Tuesday night.

He also asked security agencies, including the Army and central paramilitary forces, to submit a detailed report on the involvement of the suspected groups.

The Chief Minister said the state Cabinet could consider declaring such groups unlawful if their involvement in violence against innocent civilians was established.

He also emphasised that necessary action would be initiated against groups continuing to perpetrate violence against civilians.

India News

Agnipath scheme gets 2-year extension for Agniveers, tenure may rise to 6 years

The Centre has introduced a two-year extension for the remaining 75% of Agniveers under the Agnipath scheme, creating another opportunity for them to seek enrolment in the regular armed forces.

Published

7 hours ago

November 4, 2026

APNLive Desk

The Centre has introduced a significant change to the Agnipath recruitment scheme, offering a two-year extension to Agniveers who were earlier expected to leave the armed forces after completing their initial four-year service.

Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General NS Raja Subramani announced the decision on Wednesday following a Union Cabinet meeting. Under the revised arrangement, the 75% of Agniveers who were not initially selected for absorption into the regular armed forces will be offered an additional two-year engagement period.

The development creates another opportunity for these personnel to continue serving in the armed forces beyond their original four-year tenure.

What changes under the revised Agnipath scheme?

Under the original Agnipath framework, Agniveers were recruited for a four-year service period, including training. At the end of this tenure, up to 25% of each batch could be selected for permanent enrolment into the regular armed forces, while the remaining 75% were expected to return to civilian life.

The revised arrangement introduces an additional two-year engagement for the latter group. This means their potential service period could increase from four to six years.

The extension also creates another opportunity for Agniveers to seek enrolment into the regular armed forces after completing the additional two years.

What happens after the additional two years?

According to General NS Raja Subramani, Agniveers completing the extended engagement period and willing to continue serving will be considered for enrolment in the regular armed forces.

Their selection will be based on objective criteria.

This creates an additional pathway for those who are not absorbed into the regular forces after their initial four-year tenure. However, the revised arrangement does not mean that every Agniveer will automatically receive permanent enrolment.

Why has the decision been taken now?

The announcement comes as the first batch of Agniveers recruited under the scheme approaches the completion of its initial four-year service period.

The Agnipath scheme was introduced on June 14, 2022, to recruit personnel into the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force for a fixed four-year engagement.

General Raja Subramani said the scheme had been undergoing periodic reviews, with the performance of Agniveers being continuously evaluated. He also indicated that feedback on their performance had been very positive.

The latest Cabinet decision creates an additional route for retaining personnel beyond the initial engagement period.

What was the original Agnipath arrangement?

Under the original framework, the armed forces could retain up to 25% of Agniveers in the regular cadre after their four-year service period, subject to selection.

The remaining 75% were to complete their engagement and transition to civilian life.

With the latest revision, this group will receive an additional two-year engagement opportunity before being considered for enrolment into the regular armed forces under the prescribed selection criteria.

The change therefore modifies the earlier arrangement by providing an additional opportunity for Agniveers to continue their military careers.

India News

Hardeep Singh Puri set to win Rajya Sabha bypoll unopposed

Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri is set to be elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha from Madhya Pradesh after the returning officer rejected the nomination papers of two independent candidates.

Published

12 hours ago

November 4, 2026

APNLive Desk

Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri is set to enter the Rajya Sabha unopposed from Madhya Pradesh after the nomination papers of two independent candidates were rejected during scrutiny on Tuesday.

The two candidates whose nominations were rejected were Kante Sayanna and Rajkumar Lohani, the latter being backed by the Congress. Their rejection leaves Puri as the only candidate in the contest for the vacant Rajya Sabha seat.

According to an official, the result will be announced on November 5, which is also the last date for withdrawal of nominations.

The Returning Officer, Umesh Sharma, examined the nomination papers on the last day of scrutiny and rejected the two independent candidates’ applications.

Objections raised against Hardeep Puri’s nomination

The nomination papers submitted by Puri also faced objections from the two independent candidates and Congress leader Hemant Katare.

They questioned the validity and completeness of Puri’s affidavit filed in Form 26, raising concerns over whether the mandatory details had been properly furnished.

However, after examining the objections, Returning Officer Umesh Sharma concluded that Puri had not violated any requirements under the Representation of the People Act.

Sharma stated in his order that no defect had been found in Puri’s nomination papers that could justify their rejection.

Following the decision, Katare and Congress MLA Atif Aqeel announced that they would approach the court against the order.

Calling the decision an attack on Indian democracy, the Congress leaders said in a statement that Puri’s nomination should have been rejected despite what they described as significant errors.