The petition has been filed by two advocates and one journalist, who have been booked under UAPA in connection with their social media posts and work related to the recent communal violence in Tripura
Section 2(1)(o) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) which defines ‘unlawful activity’ has been challenged before the Supreme Court of India [Mukesh v. State of Tripura].
The petitioners, two advocates and one journalist, who have been booked under UAPA in connection with their social media posts and work related to the recent communal violence in Tripura, have criticized Section 2(1)(o) read with Sections 13 and 43D(5) of the UAPA.
While Section 2(1)(o) defines ‘unlawful activity’, Section 13 provides for punishment for ‘unlawful activity’ and Section 43D(5) lays down restrictions on grant of bail for UAPA offences.
The petitioners have contended that the definition of ‘unlawful activity’ prohibits innocuous speech by threat of punishment.
3. The amended Sections allow the government to notify any individual as a terrorist. The petitioners have contended that such labelling will lead to a lifelong stigma. It would also be against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, it was submitted.
“The definition casts a ‘wide net’ on freedom of speech and expression and makes even ideas, thoughts and discussions which pose no threat to security of India and have no tendency to create public disorder punishable under Section 13 of the Act of 1967.
The over broad language of the section leaves open the possibility that the person criticising measures of government or acts of public officials, might also come within the ambit of the penal section,” the plea said.
The petition filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, contended that the definition of ‘unlawful activity’ is vague and it fails to define criminal offence with sufficient definiteness.
“The unlawful activities are defined in such a vague manner to make its application solely on the discretion of police machinery. Neither the accused would be put on notice as to what exactly is the offence which has been committed nor would the authorities administering the section be clear as to on which side of the draw a particular speech/expression will fall,” the petition stated.
