Delhi HC seeks Centre’s reply on pleas challenging UAPA provisions
The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Centre Government to file its response to petitions challenging certain provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, stated, “Let affidavit/reply be filed on behalf of the Union of India.”
The court, while scheduling the matter for May, was hearing a batch of petitions transferred from the Supreme Court, along with a plea filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals.
The foundation has contested the UAPA provision that criminalises membership of associations declared unlawful.
On February 4, the Supreme Court had referred the petitions filed by Sajal Awasthi, Association for Protection of Civil Rights and Amitabha Pande to the High Court.
These petitions challenge amendments in the UAPA that empower the state to designate individuals as terrorists and seize their properties. The pleas also raise concerns regarding the provisions related to arrests and bail restrictions under the anti-terror law.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, representing the Centre, assured the court that the government’s response would be placed on record, but strongly opposed the challenge to Section 10 of the UAPA. He questioned the legitimacy of the Foundation for Media Professionals in challenging the law, stating, “The top court had dealt with the issue and finally buried it. Cloak of ultra vires to challenge a 1967 Act can’t be used as a free pass for notice.”
Sharma further contended that the foundation members had individual grievances and should approach the court separately. “The pendency of this case in the High Court should have no bearing on criminal proceedings under the law in other courts,” he asserted.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the Foundation for Media Professionals, emphasised that several journalists were currently imprisoned under the UAPA. “A number of journalists are in jail under the UAPA, and the cases transferred by the Supreme Court are now before the High Court,” he argued.
Awasthi’s plea contends that the amended UAPA provisions violate fundamental rights, including the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression and the right to life and liberty.
“The amendment empowers the government, under the garb of curbing terrorism, to impose an indirect restriction on the right to dissent, which is detrimental to a developing democratic society,” the plea states.
Another petitioner, Association for Protection of Civil Rights, argued that the amendments violate fundamental rights, including the right to reputation and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, without adhering to substantive and procedural due process.
