UAPA

'Anachronistic, Repressive': PUCL Moves Supreme Court Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Offence Of Sedition U/S 124A IPC https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/pucl-moves-supreme-court-against-sedition-law-section-124a-ipc-177569   Akshita Saxena 16 July 2021 

it is submitted that Sedition is a "political crime", originally enacted to prevent political uprisings against the Crown and to control the British colonies. It is argued that a law of such "repressive" character, has no place in independent India. 

The plea stated that terms like 'disaffection' 'disloyalty' 'disapprobation' etc. used to define Sedition are vague and therefore make the provision void. In fact, the Petitioner contends, the Kedar Nath judgment admits that if literal meaning to the words of Section 124A are given de hors what was said in the Judicial Committee, the Section will be beyond the limits of Art.19(2)...

Another important aspect highlighted in the plea is that when Section 124A was considered in Kedar Nath case, the offence was treated as non-cognizable offence under CrPC and an arrest could only be made on warrant issued by Magistrate. However, when CrPC was amended in 1973 and the 1898 Code was repealed, the offence of sedition became cognizable.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/pucl-moves-supreme-court-against-sedition-law-section-124a-ipc-177569 epealed, the offence of sedition became cognizable. Consequently, the severity of the offence has drastically increased since 1973 leaving police with wide discretionary powers to arrest. The charge under sedition has been widely abused as it is of political nature," 

Ex-minister Arun Shourie moves SC against sedition law July 15, 2021 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ex-minister-arun-shourie-moves-sc-against-sedition-law-7406660/ 
Arun Shourie's petition claimed that "the definition of sedition (Section 124-A of IPC) was vague and incapable of accurate appreciation by the common citizen and the law enforcement agencies/ police".

Is It Still Necessary To Continue Sedition Law, Which Was Used By British To Suppress Our Freedom Movement, Even After 75 Yrs Of Independence: CJI Ramaana To Centre 
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/pucl-moves-supreme-court-against-sedition-law-section-124a-ipc-177569

Sedition Law: How 'Colonial' Era Rule Used Against Gandhi, Tilak Works in India and in These 10 Countries  https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/sedition-law-how-colonial-era-rule-used-against-gandhi-tilak-works-in-india-and-in-these-10-countries/ar-AAMds9T A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana on Thursday issued a notice to the Centre on the need of “colonial” era sedition law asking if it is still required after 75 years of independence.

The Section 124-A: “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added; or, with fine.

Sedition law | Supreme Court sends strong message to government Krishnadas Rajagopal https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sedition-law-supreme-court-sends-strong-message-to-government/article35348364.ece   The CJI’s reference to low conviction rates under the sedition law resonates with a petition filed by senior journalist Sashi Kumar highlighting the “dramatic jump in charging a person with the offence of sedition since 2016”.

“In 2019, 93 cases were on the ground of sedition as compared to the 35 cases that were filed in 2016. The same constitutes a 165% increase. Of these 93 cases, chargesheets were filed in a mere 17% of cases and even worse, the conviction rate was an abysmally low 3.3%,” Mr. Kumar, represented by advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, has noted. National Crime Records Bureau reports show that in 2019, 21 cases of sedition were closed on account of no evidence, two were closed being false cases and six cases held to be civil disputes.

Explained: The Kedar Nath sedition ruling https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/vinod-dua-sedition-case-supreme-court-kedar-nath-ruling-explained-7343405/ 

Seven principles in the Kedar Nath Singh ruling specify situations in which the charge of sedition cannot be applied.

* The expression “ ‘the Government established by law’ has to be distinguished from the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration..”

* “Any acts within the meaning of Section 124-A which have the effect of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence.”

* “Comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal.”

* “A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence ..”

*  the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.”

* “It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order.”

* “We propose to limit its operation only to such activities as come within the ambit of the observations of the Federal Court, that is to say, activities involving incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace.”

How a Supreme Court judgment brought back the sedition law in India https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/how-a-supreme-court-judgment-brought-back-the-sedition-law-in-india/article33481062.ece A.G. Noorani Print edition : January 15, 2021 K.M. Munshi’s amendment had removed “sedition” from the Constitution, arguing that its scope was too broad to be compatible with free speech in a democracy, but the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Kedar Nath Singh case in 1962 brought it back by the back door.

LAW OF SEDITION: AN ATTEMPT TO CURB FREE SPEECH by lexlifeeditor Posted on March 29, 2021 https://lexlife.in/2021/03/29/law-of-sedition-an-attempt-to-curb-free-speech/

UAPA’s inherently flawed architecture and the role of courts https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/uapas-inherently-flawed-architecture-and-the-role-of-courts-101626016898497-amp.html By Gautam Bhatia 
UPDATED ON JUL 11, 2021 
A perusal of UAPA shows how its terms — for example, “membership” of unlawful or terrorist organisations — can be stretched to a boundless degree, allowing the State to persecute individuals for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, possessing the wrong kind of literature, or meeting the wrong kind of people, without anything further.

UAPA Bill: India's Most Dangerous Law Yet https://youtu.be/6NNhjjyVM6w?t=41  Jul 26, 2019  The new bill will allow the National Investigation Agency to wreak havoc with India’s federal system but what's most dangerous is the amendment that will allow the government to declare individuals as terrorists and not just organisations.  

Allowing the State to Designate Someone as a ‘Terrorist’ Without Trial is Dangerous https://thewire.in/rights/uapa-bjp-terrorist-amit-shah-nia  2nd Aug 2019

UAPA: When laws turn oppressive | Opinion https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/uapa-when-laws-turn-oppressive/story-d9d7OEO50LQjLZs3Ba5pzI.html By Kapil Sibal UPDATED ON JUN 30, 2020 

The home minister, when moving the amendment, justified naming an individual as a terrorist if he or she “is a terrorist worker or takes part in any terrorist act”. He also said that those who “help to promote or prepare for terrorism should also be designated as a terrorist(s)” including individuals “who raise(s) money to promote terrorism”. However, we move into a somewhat grey zone when the State seeks to prosecute people by charging them with “preparing” for terrorism or “promoting” terrorism or raising money to “promote” terrorism.

The home minister further said that there are others who attempt to plant “terrorist literature” and infiltrate young minds with “terrorist theory”. What kind of literature is “terrorist literature”, what “theories” influence young minds, and what kind of “propaganda” is perceived to be a “terrorist act” are concepts ill-defined and easily misused.

This is proof of the investigating authorities roping in named accused who are clearly not terrorists, making the law and procedures under it oppressive. Many of them are kept in custody for years before acquittal. An indication of the law’s indiscriminate misuse is reflected in the kind of people arrested under UAPA. Some disturbing examples among others are: Akhil Gogoi, a Right to Information Act activist; Safoora Zargar, a research scholar from Jamia Millia Islamia; Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha, both of whom have done seminal work in protecting India’s most vulnerable communities, namely the Dalits and Adivasis; Masrat Zahra, a 26-year-old internationally-acclaimed photojournalist; Umar Khalid for allegedly instigating the Delhi riots with his speeches at anti-CAA rallies; and Gowhar Geelani, a Kashmiri author and journalist, for his social media posts.

Between the NIA Amendment and Now UAPA, the Squeeze on Human Rights is On   https://thewire.in/government/the-centre-wants-to-give-the-nia-more-powers-but-it-wont-explain-why 

The NIA is now empowered to investigate offences related to “(i) human trafficking, (ii) offences related to counterfeit currency or bank notes, (iii) manufacture or sale of prohibited arms, (iv) cyber-terrorism, and (v) offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908”...The Centre is afraid of the coercion that could be brought against it by a police force not under its own control.   

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has also been sought to be amended. Until now, this Act allowed the government to proscribe terrorist organisations, but now allows the government to proscribe individuals as terrorists. Until now, a person could be convicted of a ‘terrorist act’, i.e. be declared a terrorist only after the due process of law.

(Comment: Jul 2021 - Since proscribing the individual would mean the individual could go to a review Tribunal, the new device used by the NIA is to call any organisation as "frontal organisation" )