Challenge to UAPA rigours: Delhi HC asks Centre to respond

A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said, “Let affidavit/reply be filed on behalf of the union of India.”

The court, which posted the matter in May, was dealing with petitions transferred from the Supreme Court aside from a plea of the Foundation for Media Professionals against the UA provision criminalising membership of associations declared unlawful.

On February 4, the top court sent to the high court petitions by Sajal Awasthi, Association for Protection Of Civil Rights and Amitabha Pande, who have challenged the amendments in UA provisions empowering the state to designate individuals as terrorists and seize properties.

The pleas also challenge the provisions over arrests and bail restrictions under the anti-terror law.

Additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma assured of filing on record the Centre’s stand while objecting to the challenge to Section 10 of the UA on criminalising memberships by the Foundation for Media Professionals.

Questioning the locus of the foundation, ASG Sharma said the top court had dealt with the issue and “finally buried” it.

“Cloak of ultra vires to challenge a 1967 Act can’t be used as a free pass for notice,” he said.

Those associated with the foundation had individual grievances, Sharma added.

He said the pendency of the case in the high court should have no bearing on the criminal proceedings under the law in other courts.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar appeared for the foundation and said a number of journalists were in jail under UA and the cases transferred by the Supreme Court were also now before the high court.

While sending the petitions to high court, the Supreme Court said complex legal issues often arose in such cases, and it would be appropriate for high courts to examine it first.

The top court on September 6, 2019 issued notice to the Centre on the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the 2019 Amendment to the UA.

Awasthi, in his plea, said the amended provisions were violative of citizens’ fundamental rights such as right to equality, freedom of speech and expression besides right to life and liberty.

The amendment empowered the government, under the garb of curbing terrorism, to impose an indirect restriction on the right to dissent which is detrimental to developing democratic society, the plea said.

The bill for amendments to the UA was passed by Parliament on August 2, 2019 and it received the President’s assent on August 9, the same year.

The amended law also enforces a travel ban on persons declared terrorists.

CR said the amendments infringed upon the fundamental right to reputation and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution without following substantive and procedural due process.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.