Losing the plot

Losing the plot

UAPA must stay focussed on terror. Slapping terror tags on individuals can go horribly astray.

The amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act passed in Lok Sabha on Wednesday have deeply disturbing portents. If Rajya Sabha too follows suit, it will allow government to designate an individual as a terrorist without much due process. Hitherto only terror organisations were proscribed under UAPA even as it prescribes punishments for persons who conduct terrorist acts, organise recruitment and financing, etc. But the new provision allowing government to designate “terrorist individuals” is virtually tantamount to presuming guilt even before the person has been found guilty by a court. This would be a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Such sweeping executive powers in the hands of government will have a chilling effect on civil liberties and free speech. The loose term – urban Maoist – used by ruling party leaders to tar activists with leftwing leanings is an example of the wide net that can be cast in search of “terrorist individuals”. Merely harbouring an opinion or an ideology could haul political dissidents or even opposition leaders into the dragnet, when article 19 of the Indian Constitution declares freedom of expression to be a fundamental right. Trinamool Congress parliamentarian Mahua Moitra has pointed to a powerful propaganda machinery that labels critics of the government as “antinationals”. How much of a leap is it from designating someone as “anti-national” to “terrorist”?

Government’s biggest failing has been in allaying fears that the amendments intend to target ideologies on the pretext of “zero tolerance policy” towards terror. Its claim that the amendments will lead to speedy investigation/prosecution mustn’t come at the cost of due process. UAPA is already a very stringent law placing the burden of proof in some offences on the accused, allowing up to 180 days custody without filing chargesheets and incarceration during trial. Rather than more legislation, the onus must thus be on strengthening investigation capabilities which NIA appears to have achieved over the past decade.

Yet even NIA’s autonomy came under question following Malegaon terror blasts ex-prosecutor Rohini Salian’s revelations that an NIA officer asked her to “go soft”. This was followed by the ruling party sending up terror suspect Sadhvi Pragya Thakur to Parliament, controverting the government claim of “zero tolerance of terror” and reinforcing the suspicion that certain ideologies, rather than terrorist acts, are sought to be targeted by the latest UAPA amendments. Government mustn’t arm itself with arbitrary and authoritarian powers which lend themselves to misuse, simply because it has a brute majority in Parliament.