In recent times, India’s democratic fabric is being relentlessly eroded by the strategic misuse of draconian laws, notably the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This legislation, originally intended to combat terrorism, is increasingly being weaponised to silence dissent and intimidate those who dare to challenge the status quo. The prosecution of the esteemed author and activist Arundhati Roy for a speech made in 2010 under this very law starkly illustrates this disturbing trend.
Roy, a celebrated Booker Prize-winning author and a staunch advocate for human rights, has never shied away from speaking truth to power. Her unflinching critique of the government’s policies on Kashmir, tribal rights, and social justice has often placed her in the crosshairs of the establishment. In 2010, during a seminar on Kashmir, Roy’s forthright comments advocating for Kashmiri self-determination and condemning the Indian state’s actions led to charges under the UAPA. This incident underscores a broader, more sinister strategy: the criminalisation of dissent.
Also read: Why Is the Indian State Reigniting a 13-Year-Old Case Against Arundhati Roy?
The UAPA, enacted in 1967 and subsequently amended to expand its scope, has become a convenient tool for the government to stifle opposition. The 2019 amendment, in particular, which allows for individuals to be designated as terrorists without due process, raises grave concerns about its potential for abuse. Roy’s prosecution is a glaring example of this misuse, aimed not at ensuring national security but at silencing a powerful voice of dissent.
Illustration: The Wire
Criminalising dissent
The government’s use of the UAPA to prosecute activists like Roy reveals a deliberate strategy to delegitimise dissent. By branding dissenters as terrorists or criminals, the state not only discredits their voices but also instils fear among others who might consider speaking out. This tactic is designed to create an atmosphere where questioning the government is seen as a subversive act, thus stifling healthy democratic discourse.
Prolonged detention without trial
One of the most insidious aspects of the UAPA is its provision for prolonged detention without the requirement of formal charges or a trial. This effectively allows the state to incarcerate activists for indefinite periods, punishing them without due process. The anguish inflicted upon those detained under this law, often without substantial evidence, is immense. They languish in jail for years, their personal and professional lives irreparably damaged, all while awaiting a trial that may never come.
Intimidation and harassment
The UAPA is not merely a legal instrument; it is a tool of psychological warfare. Activists and their families are subjected to relentless surveillance, raids, and harassment. This constant state of intimidation is designed to break their spirits and deter others from joining the fight. The emotional toll of such harassment is profound, leading to a pervasive sense of fear and helplessness among those who dare to resist.
Selective Application of the Law
The selective enforcement of the UAPA highlights the political motivations behind its use. Prominent activists, intellectuals, and critics are often the primary targets, chosen for their influential voices and ability to mobilize public opinion. Roy’s prosecution is part of a broader pattern where the state seeks to neutralise perceived threats by singling out individuals who command significant respect and attention.
The rampant misuse of the UAPA to silence dissent has far-reaching implications for India’s democracy. Free speech and the right to dissent are cornerstones of any democratic society. When the government uses laws like the UAPA to stifle these fundamental rights, it undermines the very principles upon which democracy is built. The erosion of these liberties breeds a culture of fear, where citizens are afraid to express their opinions or engage in activism.
This strategy of suppression not only targets individuals but also strikes at the heart of democratic institutions. It erodes public trust in the judiciary and law enforcement, institutions that are supposed to uphold justice and protect citizens’ rights. The anguish of seeing these institutions being manipulated for political ends fuels a deep-seated anger and disillusionment among those who believe in justice and equality.
Also read: Delhi LG Grants Sanction to Prosecute Arundhati Roy Under UAPA in 2010 Case
What does the law say?
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), originally enacted in 1967 and amended several times, is primarily aimed at combating terrorism and activities that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India. While the act is not explicitly about regulating free speech, its broad and vague definitions of “unlawful activities” and “terrorist acts” have been used to target individuals and groups for their speech and expressions, effectively curtailing free speech.
- Unlawful Activities
- Section 2(1)(o) – Definition of Unlawful Activity:
The UAPA defines “unlawful activity” as any action (whether by an individual or association) intended to disrupt India’s sovereignty, integrity, or security, or to cause disaffection against India. This includes:
Disruptive Speech: Speech that questions, disrupts, or threatens the sovereignty and integrity of India can be considered unlawful. This broad definition can include various forms of expression, from public speeches to written articles and social media posts.
Disaffection: Any expression that causes or intends to cause disaffection against India, such as statements perceived as promoting secessionist movements or inciting hatred against the government, can be labeled as unlawful.
- Section 10 – Penalties for Membership in an Unlawful Association:
If a person is found to be a member of an association declared unlawful under the act, they can face imprisonment. This can include participating in meetings, promoting, or disseminating the association’s ideas, even if these are expressed through speech or writing.
- Terrorist Activities
Section 15 – Definition of Terrorist Act:
The definition of a “terrorist act” under the UAPA is extensive and can encompass various activities, including those related to speech:
Threatening Unity and Integrity: Speech acts that threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, or intend to strike terror among people, can be classified as terrorist acts. This includes speech that might incite violence or disturb public order.
Disruption of Essential Services: Speech encouraging actions that disrupt essential services, adversely affecting public safety or causing damage to property, can be deemed a terrorist act.
Section 13 – Punishment for Unlawful Activities:
Under this section, engaging in unlawful activities can lead to imprisonment, which includes making or publishing speeches or statements that incite or support unlawful activities.
Representational image.
Section 18 – Conspiracy:
Any person who conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises, or incites, directly or indirectly, the commission of a terrorist act can be prosecuted. This can cover speeches or writings perceived to encourage terrorism.
Recent amendments and implications for free speech
2019 Amendment:
The 2019 amendment to the UAPA allows the government to designate individuals as terrorists without requiring them to be part of an organization. This amendment has significant implications for free speech:
Designation based on speech: Individuals can be labeled as terrorists based on their speech or writings, especially if these are deemed to support terrorist activities or promote enmity against the state.
Asset seizure and travel restrictions: Once designated, individuals face severe restrictions, including the seizure of their assets and travel bans, effectively curtailing their freedom of movement and expression.
Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962): A Landmark Case for Free Speech in India
The case of Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962) is one of the most significant rulings by the Supreme Court of India concerning the right to free speech and the interpretation of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Kedar Nath Singh, a member of the Forward Communist Party in Bihar, delivered a speech in 1953 that was critical of the ruling Congress government, accusing it of corruption and oppression. He called for a revolution to overthrow the government. Consequently, he was charged with sedition under Section 124A of the IPC, which penalizes speech that “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government.”
The primary legal issue was whether Section 124A of the IPC violated the fundamental right to free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The defense argued that the sedition law was overly broad and vague, leading to misuse and suppression of legitimate political dissent.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A but imposed significant limitations on its application:
Narrow interpretation of sedition
The Court held that sedition applies only to activities that involve incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or disturbance of law and order. Mere criticism of the government or its policies, without incitement to violence, does not constitute sedition.
Distinction between disaffection and advocacy
The Court made a clear distinction between disaffection towards the government and legitimate advocacy of change through lawful means. It stated that only speech that incites violence or poses a direct threat to public order can be punished under sedition laws.
Protection of free speech
The ruling emphasized the importance of protecting free speech in a democracy, noting that robust political discourse, including criticism of the government, is essential for the functioning of a democratic society.
The Kedar Nath Singh judgment is a cornerstone in the jurisprudence of free speech in India. It established important safeguards against the misuse of sedition laws to suppress political dissent and protected the right to free expression.
The judgment curtailed the government’s ability to use sedition charges to silence critics, ensuring that only speech inciting violence or public disorder falls within the ambit of sedition. The principles laid down in Kedar Nath Singh continue to guide courts in interpreting sedition laws and other statutes that impact free speech. It has been cited in subsequent cases to argue against the misuse of sedition and similar laws. While Kedar Nath Singh specifically dealt with sedition under the IPC, its principles are relevant to the UAPA’s application concerning free speech. The UAPA’s broad definitions of “unlawful activities” and “terrorist acts” can potentially be challenged using the reasoning from Kedar Nath Singh, arguing that only speech inciting violence or posing a direct threat to public order should be criminalized.
The threat of being labeled a terrorist or facing arrest under UAPA has a chilling effect on free speech. The fear of legal repercussions leads to self-censorship among journalists, activists, and intellectuals, stifling democratic discourse. This atmosphere of fear and suppression diminishes the quality of public debate and undermines the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The lack of judicial oversight and the potential for prolonged detention without trial exacerbate this injustice, leading to severe personal, social, and professional consequences for those targeted. There is an urgent need for judicial reforms and stringent safeguards to prevent the misuse of UAPA, ensuring that it does not become a weapon for stifling legitimate dissent in a democratic society.
The prosecution of Arundhati Roy under the UAPA is a stark reminder of the lengths to which the Indian government will go to silence dissent. By criminalizing dissent, detaining individuals without trial, and employing tactics of intimidation and harassment, the state seeks to quash any form of opposition. This not only undermines democratic values and civil liberties but also creates a climate of fear and repression. The anguish and anger activists and citizens feel must be channelled into a resolute defence of free speech and democratic principles. In standing up against such tyranny, we honour the true spirit of democracy and ensure that the voices of dissent continue to be heard.
Sreejayaa Rajguru is a law student. She can be reached at nairitarajguru24@gmail.com.
