Plea Challenging Constitutionality Of UAPA Provisions moved to Supreme Court

Chaini Parwani –

Published On: November 11, 2021 at 17:43 IST

The Supreme Court on Thursday acknowledged hearing a Petition challenging the Tripura Police’s move to invoke the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against several Lawyers, Activists and Journalist Shyam Meera Singh.

A Bench comprising of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice A. S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli adjudicated the Court.

The Court had previously asked Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the Petitioners, to move the concerned High Court in the issue, but later consented to it.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan highlighted in the Court that the Petitioners are challenging the Constitutional Validity of certain commonly misused Provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the broad definition of ‘Unlawful Activities’.

Further, the Petitioners noted that the Plea is being filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in connection with the targeted political violence against the Muslim Minorities in Tripura during the second half of October 2021.

The Petition stated, “The subsequent efforts by the State of Tripura to monopolise the flow of information and facts emanating from the affected areas by invoking provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (UAPA) against members of civil society including advocates and journalists who have made the effort to bring facts in relation to the targeted violence in the public domain.”

The Petitioners, namely Mukesh, Ansarul Haq Ansari, and Shyam Meera Singh, were recently booked by the Tripura Police for offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Later, they moved the Supreme Court alleging to quash the First Information Report (FIR) filed against them.

The Plea highlighted that the Lawyers are charged for their fact-finding report titled “Humanity Under Attack in Tripura #Muslim Lives Matter”, published on November 2.

The findings were a combined effort of a four-member fact-finding team comprising Advocate Ehtesham Hashmi (Supreme Court), Advocate Amit Srivastav (member, coordination committee, Lawyers for Democracy), Advocate Ansar Indori (National Secretary, NCHRO), & Advocate Mukesh (Member, PUCL Delhi) 

Further, the Petition highlighted that the Journalist was charged solely for tweeting “Tripura is burning.”

Furthermore, the Petitioners stated that the move was against the orchestrated and targeted violence perpetrated by political right-wing forces on the Minority Muslim Community in Tripura in October 2021.

The Petitioners contend that the definition of Unlawful Activities under UAPA criminalises innocuous speech and imposes a “wide net” on freedom of speech and expression. Gave different grounds for challenging the vague definition of ‘Unlawful Activities’

  • Possession of documents and literature, reporting of information, expression of views, opinions, and conversations that pose no threat to India’s security and have no potential to cause public disturbance are all made illegal under Section 13 of the Act.
  • Petitioners have contended that the provision’s phrasing is ‘overbroad,’ since it leaves open the possibility that someone criticising government policies or actions by public authorities might also fall under the purview of the criminal section.

Also Read: Prashant Bhushan and His Contempt
Justice Hima Kohli becomes first female Chief Justice of Telangana High Court

Related Post