AI Summit critics risk imprisonment under UAPA: Delhi HC told
What's the story
The Delhi High Court on Thursday began hearing petitions challenging certain provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The petitions were filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals (FMP) and others against certain sections of the law, often used in cases related to terrorism and national security. Appearing for one of the petitioners, senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued that Section 2(1)(o)(iii) of UAPA is vague and arbitrary.
Legal argument
Datar argues definition of 'unlawful activity' is too broad
Datar argued that the broad definition of "unlawful activity" under Section 2(1)(o)(iii) is too broad and could intimidate journalists. "There are no boundaries, no limit now. A journalist saying the AI-summit is going wrong may be jailed. At the heart of it [the UAPA] is that a journalist is under the constant fear that any kind of criticism will amount to disaffection towards India," he said.
Argument
'Cannot be treated as crime unless...'
Explaining further the ambiguity of the law, he said, "I may criticize a mining policy. It may show India in a bad light, but as long as I am not inciting violence or promoting violence, that's not unlawful; it's democracy." He argued that just expressing dissent or criticism of government acts cannot be treated as a crime unless there is incitement to violence.
Bail challenge
Challenge to anticipatory bail provisions under UAPA
Datar also challenged Section 43D(4) of the UAPA, which prohibits anticipatory bail. He argued that similar offenses under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita allow for anticipatory bail, making this provision unconstitutional. The senior advocate also contested the proviso to Section 43D(5), which restricts granting bail if a prima facie case is found in the case diary. "Many journalists are in jail for 600-700 days because they (trial courts) see the case diary and say yes (there is prima facie case)," he said.
Adjourned hearing
Hearing on petitions to continue in March
Underlining the freedom of speech, Datar submitted that "disaffection," being "undefined," "unexplained," and "without any boundary," was capable of the "grossest" abuse. Last February, the Supreme Court forwarded petitions to the high court by Sajal Awasthi, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), and Amitabha Pande, challenging amendments to UAPA provisions that allow the state to label individuals as terrorists and seize property. The HC was dealing with these petitions along with FMPs. Next hearing on March 17.