UAPA

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act-UAPA का दुरुपयोग कब रुकेगा https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDmFGtiVa3o
Oct 15, 2022 गैरकानूनी गतिविधि रोकथाम अधिनियम (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act-UAPA), 1967 की नागरिक समाज द्वारा आलोचना की जाती रही है। यह संविधान द्वारा प्राप्त असहमति की स्वतंत्रता, विधि के शासन और निष्पक्ष परीक्षण के विरुद्ध है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट के चार पूर्व न्यायाधीशों ने भी (यूएपीए) पर दंडात्मक प्रावधान को निरस्त करने की वकालत की थी। UAPA का आमतौर पर असंतोष को दबाने और सरकार से सवाल पूछने वाली आवाजों को दबाने के लिए दुरुपयोग किया जाता है।

Bombay High Court Acquits Professor GN Saibaba & 5 Others In UAPA Case Over Alleged Maoist Links LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 14 Oct 2022 https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/bombay-high-court-acquits-professor-gn-saibaba-5-others-in-uapa-case-over-alleged-maoist-links-211623  The Court has allowed their appeals against conviction and life sentence imposed under the anti-terror law UAPA.  One of the accused, Pandu Pora Narote, died in August 2022. Mahesh Tirki, Hem Keshwdatta Mishra, Prashant Rahi and Vijay Nan Tirki are the other accussed

CONCLUSIONS :
We record our conclusions thus :
(i) In view of the findings recorded by us, we hold that the proceedings in Sessions Trials 30/2014 and 130/2015 are null and void in the absence of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the UAPA, and the common judgment impugned is liable to be set aside, which we do order.
(ii) We are conscious of the demise of accused 2-Pandu Pora Narote during the pendency of the appeal. We are of the considered view, that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesan (Dead) through LR. Girija  71 , which is rendered on the anvil of the provisions of Section 394 of the Code of 1973, appeal preferred by accused 2-Pandu Pora Narote does not abate.
(iii) The prosecution did submit that if the appeal is decided, not on merits, but only on the point of sanction, we may grant liberty to the prosecution to obtain proper sanction and try the accused. In view of the well entrenched position of law, that the rule against double jeopardy has no application if the trial is held vitiated due to invalidity or absence of sanction, we see no reason to dilate any further on the
said submission.

Post by Meena:  .. All were accused u/various sections of the UAPA, 120(B) and others. They were convicted in March 2017 by the sessions court in Nagpur. We need to celebrate this judgement. Kudos to the judges of the Bombay High Court today. Sad that Pandu Narote died in August. He would have been a free bird too. The judges were BR Deo and Anil Lakshman Pansare, this was an appeal of 2017, a case of Gadchiroli.  We hope that the Maharashtra Police does not get a stay on the acquittal.

Academic GN Saibaba To Stay In Jail, Rules Supreme Court https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3P8xIrRHoU  Oct 15, 2022 GN Saibaba, the former Delhi University professor who is serving a life term for Maoist links, will continue to remain in jail, the Supreme Court said today, suspending the Bombay High Court order on his acquittal. The top court also issued notice to the accused on Maharashtra government's plea challenging the High Court and listed the matter for hearing on December 8.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/prof-gn-saibaba-delhi-uni-supreme-court-bombay-hc-acquittal-suspended-uapa-sanction-211735 Justice Trivedi pointed that as per Section 386 CrPC, appellate court can acquit only after reversing the findings of the trial court. (In this case, the accused was discharged on the basis of sanction, without going into merits).

Saibaba's lawyers had argued.. "We have argued on full on merits. High Court only considers one aspect (of sanction). Kindly see my plight, our incarceration will be prolonged,"  Court:  " You may have argued everything, but can the benefit of the mistake committed by the HC be given to the accused?"

"Brain is most dangerous" I Wheelchair bound Saibaba to stay in Jail for Maoist Links I Barkha Dutt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOsTAC2pvXM 
 Supreme Court has suspended the Bombay High Court's order discharging former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba and five others in alleged Maoist link case. On Friday, the High Court had allowed their appeals against conviction and life sentence.

Barkha Dutt speaks to Mihir Desai https://youtu.be/pOsTAC2pvXM?t=191, conditions of prisons https://youtu.be/pOsTAC2pvXM?t=1119

Operation of the Naxals still active, PK Jain https://youtu.be/pOsTAC2pvXM?t=326, 

Immediate saturday hearing? Surprised ..Chitranshul Sinha   https://youtu.be/pOsTAC2pvXM?t=580 

Shashank Shekhar Jha, why Saturday? Soveriegnity perhaps,  https://youtu.be/pOsTAC2pvXM?t=779 

Will Matthews , https://youtu.be/pOsTAC2pvXM?t=955   UAPA issue: 72% increase in cases.. Article 21 v/s state. No person shall be deprived of the freedom except under under procedure.. 

 Analysis of the data so collected and segregated would help expose if Sec. 18 was used deliberately only for the purpose of implicating persons under UAPA to ensure that they did not get bail easily.

What is significant is that 152/238 cases (or 64%) cases involving Sec. 18 charge are in
respect of cases where there is no allegation of a terrorist act or an actual incident of terror
involving the use of weapons or causing physical injury is reported to have taken place. In other
words, in more than half (64%) of the UAPA cases involving Sec.18 charge, the mere allegation
of the police that a person is a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation or that a recovery
of weapon/explosives/money/drugs were made from him is sufficient to get the person arrested
and imprisoned for many years.

Those arrested under UAPA languish in jail sometimes even for decades, waiting for their
trial to begin. By the time they are acquitted, the damage is complete; an irreparable damage is
done to several aspects of their lives, inflicting pain and trauma on them and on all those
dependent on them...

By beginning to document the scale of abuse faced by thousands
under this law and by formulating a comprehensive database on all UAPA prosecutions across
the country, the dangers in the ambiguities of the UAPA law and its draconian provisions
become all the more striking. The objective is also to stimulate more discussions and encourage
more research on the constitutional, moral, ethical and human consequences of the UAPA and
the NIA, as we all come together and demand the repeal of the law.
We ask of the civil societies to be more vigilant, to come together and raise their voices
against the flagrant state abuse. We urge the political parties and leaders of the entire political
spectrum to aid in strengthening the demand to repeal the draconian UAPA and other such laws
which should not have a place in a constitutional democracy where rule of law is upheld

We
seek your support through the following actions:
1. Demand repeal of UAPA.
2. Demand repeal of all other anti-people laws.
3. Demand repeal of the NIA Act and disbanding of NIA.
4. Demand the immediate release of all political prisoners, on bail.
5. Take action against all police officials who have wilfully launched false and
fabricated cases against the marginalised communities, journalists, academicians,
students and others.
6. Take action to provide reparations for those wrongfully accused and released by
courts.

A 79-yr-old academic from Lucknow is standing surety for Kappan, when no one else did
Siddique Kappan’s legal team found it hard to get two people to stand as surety in Uttar Pradesh and that was when Roop Rekha Verma, former VC of Lucknow University stepped in. “This is the minimum any citizen can do in dark times,” she told TNM. https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/why-79-year-old-academic-lucknow-decide-stand-surety-kappan-168116

That was when 79-year-old Roop Verma stepped in and said that she is willing to stand as surety for the Kerala journalist, who was arrested while on his way to Hathras in Uttar Pradesh to report on the gangrape and murder of a Dalit woman by dominant caste men. According to those who were helping the legal team, it was an arduous task to get two people two stand as surety. A second person has also agreed to stand as surety but the identity is not being revealed considering the sensitivity of the case.