By Abdul Subhan Seth
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill is dangerous for Indian middle class in general and Muslims in particular. Under this new amendment, suspect is a criminal and mere possession of ammunition is enough evidence to prove that the person is a terrorist
Knee jerk reaction was seen in the legislature, that passed the Unlawful Activities (prevention) Amendment Bill, within three weeks of Mumbai terror attack incidence.
The amendment bill certainly provides another tool for disdain against the weaker section of society particularly the Muslims of India.
This is a hasty inglorious act of the UPA government. It has just reiterated the POTA opprobrious legislation passed by NDA government soon after parliament attack. The only difference between the two bills is that custodial confession is not admissible evidence under the new legislation.
Secondly, the definition of terrorism has changed under the new bill. Section 55 of UAPA extends the definition of terrorism to unbelievable levels.
In fact, this can now be so liberally interpreted that provisions of the law can be applied even against vocal thinkers and human rights activists like Arundhati Roy. For example, if a terrorist has been influenced by the writing of any thinker, then the police or the other enforcing authority can proceed against the writer.
The bail provisions are pretty unreasonable. Generally, an accused can not get bail for 180 days. And if an accused is charged under multiple sections of then he will be behind bars for one and half years(11/2 years).
No way can such legislation hope to achieve its objective of deterring terrorists. In fact, it leads to the exact opposite. It can help those who recruit terrorist, by creating a fear psychosis.
For instance if an innocent is falsely accused of anti -state thought or action and arrested, then he will have to spend nearly 18 months in prison. At the end of this period, he is most likely to turn anti-state, even if police fail to establish evidence against him.
Section 43(e) supports the idea that mere possession of any ammunition is enough evidence to prove one to be a terrorist. This ghastly provision can be misused by police or investigating officers, as they can place a weapon in the house of innocents and try to fix them.
Such laws can not be implemented in equity and fairness. The legal–judicial system does not work in a vacuum. They operate in the framework of the society that has a prejudice
against certain communities and groups. Therefore, it is definitely possible that the weaker sections will be at the receiving end.
Section 51(a) is the possibly most dangerous. This proves that mere suspicion can be equated to crime. This is against the principle of natural justice. A law is no law unless it has safeguards against misuse. It was shameful to see that those who opposed POTA did not oppose UAPA.
The fundamental problem lies with the objective of the legislation. The government claims that it the law would prevent spread of terror. This is meaningless as a terrorist who is prepared to die, is not bothered of laws and the punishment under it.
The only affect of such laws will be to demoralize weaker sections and alienate them. Better methods of handle terror would be to strengthen the intelligence mechanism and provide functional autonomy to all fighting forces.
It could at least ensure that NSG teams do not have to wait for the military chopper to come from Delhi when there is another attack in another city!.
The situation in India post 26\11 is similar to the one in US post 9/11. The Mumbai terror attacks have reduced the middle classes in India to a state of panic. The situation is being used by the state to institutionalize an Orwellian police state.
The Opposition and Treasury benches have joined hands to pass laws that will make the state more powerful than any other entity.
Custodial deaths and fake encounters aside, thousands are languishing in jails without trial. This is at a time when the existing laws are liberal. One can only imagine the increase in such incidents when draconian laws are passed.
I can only weep for the thousands who may be set to suffer under renewed state brutality.
—
Abdul Subhan Seth is a student of law