The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, which has received the Presidential assent after being passed in both the Houses of Parliament in the just-concluded session, empowers the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to designate an individual as a “terrorist”.
It may be noted that this is the fourth Amendment to the original Act, enunciated way back in 1967. Earlier, it was amended in 2004, 2008 and 2013. In its earliest form, the Act allowed the government to designate any organisation as unlawful and criminalised what it called ‘unlawful activities’. Through the subsequent Amendments, it defined terrorism as a crime and granted the government the power to declare and ban organisations as terrorist. The police got enhanced powers of interrogation and made it difficult for the arrested persons to get bail.
What this means is that like any law, this Act has never remained static and has undergone changes with the change of time and rise of new challenges. And that has been the case irrespective of the government of the day.
The latest Act redefines a “terrorist act” as any act committed with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country. Accordingly, it empowers the NIA (in effect, the central government) to designate an individual a “terrorist” if he or she is found committing, preparing for, promoting, or involved in an act of terror. The central government may designate an individual as a terrorist through a notification in the official gazette. The government is not required to give an individual an opportunity to be heard before such a designation.
This story is from the August 2019 edition of Legal Notes.
Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 8,500+ magazines and newspapers.
Already a subscriber ? Sign In
This story is from the August 2019 edition of Legal Notes.
Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 8,500+ magazines and newspapers.
Already a subscriber? Sign In
Time For Action
Since time immemorial, the environment has had a larger-than-life place in the Indian scheme of things. But the Nineties and the new century have really been a sad story of a virtually unending line of laws failing to combat the increasing levels of pollution brought forth by urbanisation, and the global pressure about greenhouse emissions resulting in the Paris accord that now brings in its wake greater pressure on countries to tighten laws. Amidst all this, India shines as a classic example of the irrational mindset of enacting more laws to produce less pollution. RACHANA RANA BHATTACHARYA, while examining the dizzying number of laws that engulf us and the incredulously lopsided judicial pronouncements made by different courts, poses a simple question: What is the way forward?
Who's Responsible For Fukushima?
Even as the Fukushima nuclear disaster continues to haunt a section of the Japanese people and the world, a Japanese Court’s decision to acquit the nuclear power company, TEPCO’s bosses after three years of trial, raises questions over the use of nuclear power for energy needs.
Tata, Bye-Bye?
What would one choose between their right to vote in local body elections and to receive world class civic amenities? The answer isn’t as simple as it looks. Jamshedpur — the land of the Tatas has been struggling with this question for the last 30 years and looks like they still haven’t found an answer. Maintained by the Tatas, there has been a steady incline in the number of voices demanding a government operated municipality to take over the town. In the midst of consecutive orders by various High Courts, the Supreme Court and clashing opinions, SHWETA MENON in her visit to the steel city found that the majority verdict by the janta remains in favour of the Tatas.
No Winners In The Opioid Case
Pain can make you rich and the opioid issue in the US is testimony to that. But other than the wealth it spawned, opioid has generated a huge number of legal cases in the US – and quite a few of them have been filed by the states. Will the Sacklers, one of the richest families in the US and the makers of the pain-relieving drug OxyContin, go scot free?
J&-K A Jumble Of Laws
The transition of Jammu and Kashmir from a state to a Union Territory hasn’t been an easy one.
Tourism Of A Different Kind
Is settlement tourism making the situation worse in the disputed West Bank region? That is a question that remains to be answered. Despite Airbnb changing course on its earlier decision to ban listings for Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the legal battle continues.
Another Toothless Commission!
There was a walkout by the opposition, protests were staged across the capital, activists were shoved into police vans, letters were written to the President urging him to not sign the amendment and yet the central government was finally able to hit a six in its second attempt this year to amend the RTI (Right to Information) Act!
Labour's “Decent Life” Dreams Continue
“Every moving The Code on Wages Bill, 2019 made it a point to inform the Members of the Rajya Sabha that the government had accepted 17 out of the 24 recommendations made by the Standing Committee which had scrutinised a similar bill introduced in the previous Lok Sabha.
Article 370 - The Albatross Around The Neck
Considered an ‘albatross around the neck’ by the present BJP government at the centre, the sudden and surprising abrogation of Article 370 has opened the doors to a flood of emotions. The abrogation will be debated and tested in the Supreme Court, but it seems that the move has already won in the peoples’ court.
UAPA Amendment: Need Of The Hour
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019, which has received the Presidential assent after being passed in both the Houses of Parliament in the just-concluded session, empowers the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to designate an individual as a “terrorist”.
