‘UAPA in its present form is constitutionally valid’: Bombay HC dismisses challenge to validity of law
The Bombay High Court passed the judgement on a plea filed by a man who was issued notice in 2020 in connection with the Elgaar Parishad case.
2 min read
The Bombay High Court had extended its interim order of May 26, awaiting the Delhi High Court verdict, noting that final permanent replacement of the petitioner would lead to “irreparable injury” till then. (File)The Bombay High Court Thursday dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the offence of sedition.
The high court passed the judgement on the 2021 plea by Anil Baburao Baile, who was issued notice in 2020 in connection with the Elgaar Parishad case. Through advocates Prakash Ambedkar, Nikhil Kamble and Hitendra Gandhi, Baile sought a declaration that the UAPA and Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) be declared as ultra vires and unconstitutional.
In his plea, Baile also sought the setting aside of the July 10, 2020, notice issued to him by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
“The UAPA in its present form is constitutionally valid, therefore, the challenge to its vires fails, and the petition is dismissed,” a bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Neela K Gokhale pronounced.
“Mr Ambedkar, you made us think (while deciding this plea),” Justice Gadkari orally remarked.
In his plea, Baile also claimed that the UAPA granted “unbridled power’ to the executive to declare an organisation or an individual and their activity unlawful without defining the same in the law. He added that the amendment made in the UAPA to adopt the United Nations Security Council’s 2001 resolution, which was for criminalising any person supporting international terrorism, made it possible for the government to declare an Indian citizen or an organisation as a terrorist.
“Nowhere does the Constitution authorise a blanket power to the executive in deciding and
Parliament cannot be granted blanket power to declare an organisation as unlawful,” the plea argued.
The Central government opposed the plea, and submitted that various pleas were pending before the high court and the Supreme Court, taking exception to the validity of the UAPA. They also referred to the pending challenge to the constitutional validity of the sedition law under Section 124A of the IPC before the Supreme Court.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh and advocate Sandesh Patil for Centre argued that there were checks and balances in UAPA Act with right to default bail made available and accused is required to be produced before special court within stipulated time
You May Like
Photos
