DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

SC refuses to entertain pleas against UAPA amendments

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain petitions challenging the amendments in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 that empowered the state to designate individuals as terrorists and seize properties. "We cannot be the court of first instance… A lot...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain petitions challenging the amendments in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 that empowered the state to designate individuals as terrorists and seize properties.

"We cannot be the court of first instance… A lot of problems arise… sometimes issues are left by your side, sometimes by their side… then we have to refer to a larger Bench. Let it be first decided by the high court," a Bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna said, asking the Delhi High Court to hear the issue.

While hearing petitions filed by Sajal Awasthi, Association for Protection Of Civil Rights and Amitabha Pande, the Bench said other high courts could also examine fresh petitions against the UAPA amendments. The CJI said often complex legal issues arose in such cases, and it would be appropriate for high courts to examine it first.

Advertisement

On September 6, 2019, the top court had issued notice to the Centre on the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the 2019 Amendment to the Act. On behalf of the petitioners, senior advocate CU Singh urged the top court to hear the matter saying it issued notices five years ago.

Instead of disposing of the petitions, the matter could be transferred to the Delhi High Court as there were logistical difficulties for the petitioners, many of whom, he said, were retired bureaucrats. The CJI said the pleas would be listed before the Delhi High Court.

Advertisement

Awasthi alleged that the amended provisions were violative of citizens' fundamental rights such as right to equality, freedom of speech and expression besides right to life and liberty. The 2019 amendment empowered the government, under the garb of curbing terrorism, to impose an indirect restriction on the right to dissent which is detrimental to developing democratic society, the plea said.

The petitioners alleged that the amendments infringed upon the fundamental right to reputation and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, 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 plea said.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper