Opinion | Anti-Terrorism Law, UAPA, Denying Guarantees Of Fair Trial, Right To Life And Liberty

The Delhi Police is insistent that investigation into the Jamia Millia Islamia and Northeast Delhi violence is proceeding 바카라�fairly바카라� and 바카라�impartially바카라�, guided by 바카라�forensic and scientific evidence바카라�. Even in a world where words have seemingly lost all meaning, this statement still manages to sting you with its insincerity. The Delhi Police seems to be mocking us all, rebuking us in fact, reminding us that words and phrases like rule of law, justice, victims and fairness shall be defined only in the manner that the government pleases.

For, immediately after offering us these platitudes, the Delhi Police invoked Sections 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against arrested student leaders and activists involved in the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). Make no mistake, the State has thus deployed the mightiest weapons in its arsenal against dissent. Sections 16 to 18 of the UAPA refer variously to 바카라�punishment for terrorist act바카라�, 바카라�raising funds for terrorist act바카라�, and 바카라�conspiracy etc바카라� related to a terrorist act. And Section 13 pertains to punishment for 바카라�unlawful activity바카라�바카라�a term that denotes something simultaneously vague and all-encompassing, just like 바카라�terrorist act바카라�.

바카라�Unlawful activity바카라�, for example, includes bringing about or supporting secession, disclaiming, questioning or intending to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, or causing or intending to cause disaffection. It is thus on the slippery terrain of 바카라�intention바카라�, 바카라�support바카라�, 바카라�questioning바카라�, 바카라�disclaiming바카라�. And because violence is not even the key ingredient of unlawful act바카라�which embraces everything from act or words, either spoken or written, even 바카라�signs or visible representation or otherwise바카라�바카라�the law allows the government to consign political and social struggles that challenge the mainstream national narrative to the overflowing category of unlawful.

Sections 16-18 were seeped into UAPA from the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) when the latter was repealed in 2004 following mounting evidence of the way in which that law was used to target political dissidents and marginalised sections, including adivasis and Muslims. It is this terrible legacy that has been absorbed into UAPA. The same imprecision that attached to POTA바카라�s definition of terror afflicts UAPA too. It is defined primarily through intent (바카라�intent to strike terror바카라�), others things being same. It duplicates a range of criminal law offences, such as causing death, injuries, damage to public property, disrupting essential services, use of firearms, explosives etc바카라�all of which are otherwise also covered under a range of laws. This provides latitude to the executive바카라�both police and government바카라�to subjectively choose what to designate as terror, and what to dismiss indulgently as ordinary violence. It is in their power then to decide when to invoke the draconian provisions of UAPA, and when to apply (and in some cases, never to apply) ordinary criminal law.

And this is precisely the seduction of laws like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), POTA and now the UAPA.

What the UAPA hollows out is the constitutional guarantees of fair trial and right to life and liberty. It thus perverts the very notion of rule of law beyond recognition. Check Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which deals with bail provisions. A replica of Section 49(7) of POTA, it makes it practically impossible for an accused to secure bail. Under this section, bail cannot be granted till the public prosecutor has been heard, and it can be declined if the magistrate concludes, upon reading the chargesheet, that the charges are true. So, in effect, an accused has to demonstrate her innocence, that too at the start of the trial, in order to be even granted bail. UAPA thus explicitly바카라�and legally바카라�denies the presumption of innocence. Which, of course, is the very bedrock of modern law.

Secondly, through its sheer arbitrariness, it allows the marking out of 바카라�enemies of the State바카라�, who can then be quarantined and neutered. These are both political ideas and groups (바카라�urban Naxals바카라�, for example, most recently), and categories of people defined by religious or ethnic markers.

The figure of the anti-CAA protestor condenses both a dissident politics and a suspect religious category. A Muslim out on the streets speaking politics and rejecting the communalisation of citizenship바카라�from Sharjeel Imam to Safoora Zargar바카라�is then a threatening, dangerous 바카라�Other바카라� par excellence.

Read, for example, what the notorious FIR in the Delhi violence case says: it speaks of a 바카라�premeditated conspiracy바카라� of rather apocalyptic proportions. It involves바카라�as alleged links in the chain leading up to rioting바카라�young student leaders who gave speeches against CAA and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), protesting women and children who blocked roads under the Jaffrabad metro station, and all ordinary Muslims who did not send their children to school knowing that violence would break out!

Imagine that sweep. It is not even simply those who have been arrested who are criminalised here바카라�(and that바카라�s a widening lasso that has already netted Jamia alumni association president Shifa-Ur-Rehman). The real effect goes way beyond that. In one stroke, the conspiracy is shown to be one in which the entire Muslim community was complicit, women and children included. 바카라�Instigator바카라�, 바카라�conspirator바카라�, 바카라�rioter바카라�: every Muslim is guilty.

This is no ordinary FIR. Its narrative burden is more than simply to criminalise a democratic movement바카라�a movement that was as peaceful and inspiring in its form as radical in its content, a movement that simply sought adherence to the Constitution. It is to pathologise an entire community. And by extension, to wipe out the fact that the victims of the February violence바카라�now designated as a terror act through the application of UAPA바카라�were overwhelmingly Muslims.

Would terror charges have been invoked if a different set of accused had been booked for the Northeast Delhi violence바카라�say, those whose speeches openly threatened violence against anti-CAA protestors? That such a prejudiced document is the basis of the present investigation and prosecution should give us all, and the judiciary, ample cause for alarm.

(Views expressed are personal)

Sethi teaches sociology at NALSAR University, Hyderabad, and is author of Kafkaland: Law, Prejudice and Counter-terrorism in India