As an extra week of the monsoon session approaches parliament, this is a good time to tackle one of the most controversial laws approved by Lok Sabha.

The draft law under consideration is the Bill on the Amendment of Unlawful Activities (Prevention), 2019, which makes significant changes to its original law, the Prevention of Illegal Activities Act, 1967.

Here are the relevant questions to ask – what are these changes and what are the concerns raised by these amendments?

Stable law to change times

The beginning of the 1967 law dates back to the recommendation of the National and Regional Integration Committee formed under the auspices of the National Integration Council.

This law was also the result of the sixteenth constitutional amendment, which imposed an appropriate prohibition on the right to form an independent speech, expression and association under article 19 of the Constitution.

The aim of the National Integration Council was to ensure and promote the principle of river unity in diversity, while in the first decades of independence, attention was paid to secessionist demands.

However, since its inception, legislation has been quickly played out and disassociated with definitions of key words such as terrorist and illegal activities among others.

These are aspects that have developed UPA as a reputation for separating political opponents and the spy tool of various political ideologies.

This is a tradition that continues with a set of modifications now.

Modify

The practice of naming people as terrorists and seizing property is partly due to the fact that terrorist organizations often change their name and are thus able to remove the authorities.

Many countries around the world have joined as part of their anti-terrorism laws. The problem is that there is currently no specific procedure for classifying a person as a terrorist and only one of them is convicted after being convicted by the court.

Since UAPA is not special to conduct a thorough judicial inquiry, this is a viable claim to invalidate this provision due to the significant impact on the right to freedom of life and liberty.

In 1952, the Supreme Court (Madras State vs. VG Row) violated the provisions of the Pre-Independence Act because it violated the Constitution by failing to submit a full judicial investigation into the government’s decision to ban unions.

With regard to the secondary issue of delegation authority to lower-level officers of the National Investigation Agency, the Minister of the Interior says that it is based on realism and utilitarianism.

However, in order to combat this allegation, the current law already allows police officers to choose an appropriate estimate of why they want to prosecute them for when and for what reason.

Apart from this, the accused can be held for six months before the case is brought against them. To keep human rights concerns aside, in the current process, any kind of delay can be questioned.

In view of the bill, which relies on many types of international charters, it is impatiently missing any section that would guarantee the free and fair hearing of a terrorist organization accused and / or Article 10 of the Universal Declaration and will be said 14 separately.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively. Under this law, the severity of the provisions must be weighed against the international agreement signed by India and ratified to preserve the rule of law.

Union Minister of the Interior Amit Shah did not underestimate the claim that these amendments would be used as a tool for hunting political magic by calling for a clear call against the urban Maoists.

One word creates a sharp debate for the better part of the past two years and has arrested the allegations against activists such as Aaron Faria, Sudha Bhardhawaj.

Instead of looking at this piece of modification, it is important to consider it as part of the story of developing India as a developing country with a strong surveillance network.

Recently, the Ministry of Public Health announced a plan to deploy facial recognition technology as part of the CCRNS network.

With the above amendment, this decision also considers the pattern of decisions in which programs and laws are launched, with little consideration for possible human rights violations.

While the legal system, which acts as a strong and effective preventive control network, is a prerequisite for any modern nation-state.

However, this problem lies in the need to do so through the fixed process and security measures, as it has been developed in a set of Supreme Court decisions.

Leave A Reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here