New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 4) refused to hear pleas challenging the amendments in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) empowering the state to designate individuals as terrorists and seize properties, saying it could not be a court of first instance.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the 2019 Amendment to the UAPA.
What did the apex court say?
The bench asked the Delhi High Court to hear the matter. Other high courts could also examine fresh pleas challenging the amendments made to the UAPA, it added.
“We cannot be the court of first instance… A lot of problems arise, sometimes issues are left by your side (petitioner), sometimes by their side (Union), then we have to refer to a larger bench. Let it be first decided by the high court,” the bench said.
Apex court issued notice to Centre in 2019
The apex court in September 2019 had issued notice to the Centre on the pleas against the amendments made to the UAPA.
What did petitioner Sajal Awasthi submit?
One of the petitioners, Sajal Awasthi, said in his plea that the amended provisions were violative of citizens’ fundamental rights and that it empowers the government to impose an indirect restriction on the right to dissent under the garb of curbing terrorism and it is detrimental to developing democratic society.
What did petitioner APCR submit?
Another petitioner, Association for Protection Of Civil Rights (APCR), submitted that “A person who is designated a terrorist, even if he is de-notified subsequently, faces a lifelong stigma and this tarnishes his reputation for life” and “Notifying an individual as a terrorist without giving him an opportunity of being heard violates the individual’s right to reputation and dignity, which is a facet of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The Parliament passed the bill for amendments to the UAPA on August 2, 2019 and the bill received the President’s assent on August 9 that year.
