Bombay HC Upholds Constitutional Validity Of UAPA; Dismisses Plea Challenging Anti-Terror Law

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, stating that the legislation is valid in its present form.

A division bench of Justices Ajey S. Gadkari and Neela Gokhale said, “UAPA in its present form is constitutionally valid. The challenge to its vires fails. The petition fails.” A detailed judgment is awaited.

The petition was filed by Anil Baile, who had been issued a notice by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020 in connection with the Elgar Parishad violence case of 2018. Baile had approached the High Court in 2023, contending that the provisions of the UAPA as well as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition) are ultra vires the Constitution.

The plea argued that the UAPA grants excessive powers to the executive, enabling it to arbitrarily designate individuals and organisations as terrorists or unlawful without proper safeguards or clear definitions.

It claimed that amendments made to align the Act with the United Nations Security Council’s 2001 resolution effectively allowed criminalisation of citizens without due process.

The petitioner also sought quashing of the 2020 NIA notice and a stay on proceedings against him under the UAPA and Section 124A, pending final adjudication.

The Union of India, in its reply, defended the legislation, stating that the UAPA, enacted in 1967, remains consistent with constitutional principles and does not violate fundamental rights.

It emphasized that the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, which altered Article 22 dealing with preventive detention, does not affect the UAPA, as the Act does not fall within the scope of preventive detention.

The Centre argued that the petitioner’s contention, that the UAPA became unconstitutional due to the 44th Amendment not being notified, was flawed and self-contradictory. It asserted that the absence of such a notification cannot render an existing law unconstitutional.

The government also pointed out that there are procedural safeguards in the UAPA, including the right to default bail and mandatory production of the accused before a special court under Section 43.

Notably, the Supreme Court had earlier this year permitted High Courts to adjudicate on challenges to the UAPA, holding that the apex court should not be the court of first instance in such matters. A similar challenge to UAPA is currently pending before the Delhi High Court.