India: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (as amended)

Overview

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, provides India's primary statutory framework for designating and prosecuting terrorist organisations and individuals. It was enacted principally to address Naxalite and separatist movements but has been progressively extended in scope through a series of amendments linked to specific security incidents.

The 2004 amendment followed the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament (attributed to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed) and incorporated provisions for designating terrorist organisations. Subsequent amendments in 2008 (post-Mumbai attacks) and 2012 expanded the definition of terrorist acts and the powers of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which was established in 2008.

2019 Amendment: Individual Designation

The most contested change was introduced by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, which empowered the central government to designate any individual as a terrorist without requiring a conviction or a court's prior approval. The government is required to review the designation, and the designated individual may apply to a Review Committee. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Indian Civil Liberties Union criticised the amendment for removing judicial oversight from the designation process.

The Supreme Court in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) held that bail in UAPA cases requires a "prima facie" review of evidence but set a high bar, effectively making bail difficult to obtain in UAPA proceedings.

Designated Organisations

As of 2024, 44 organisations are designated under the UAPA schedule, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Indian Mujahideen, Hizbul Mujahideen, and the Popular Front of India (designated in 2022). Designations are reviewed by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal.

Criticism and Counter-Arguments

Human rights organisations have documented the use of UAPA against journalists, academics, and activists in cases unrelated to terrorism, including the Bhima Koregaon cases involving arrests of civil society figures under UAPA charges. Government officials and national security analysts have argued that the broad provisions are necessary to address the range of threats India faces and are subject to sufficient judicial oversight through the NIA courts and the Supreme Court.