New Delhi: The Amnesty International and the Front Line Defenders have expressed grave concern over India’s increasing misuse of counter-terrorism laws to target civil society actors. Ahead of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) plenary, the organisations have urged the Indian government to comply with the FATF’s recommendations without misusing its standards.
The recent prosecution of writer Arundhati Roy and Kashmiri academic Sheikh Showkat Hussain under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for a 2010 speech highlights the broader pattern of arbitrarily targeting government critics using draconian laws, the public statement issued by the Amnesty International and the Front Line Defenders on June 24, noted.
“The weaponisation of the UAPA to target human rights defenders and stifle critical voices in India has exponentially increased in the last 10 years. The draconian provisions under the UAPA such as high thresholds for granting bail, long incarceration without charge, and reversal of the presumption of innocence resulting in a burden of innocence being put on the accused persons, are often invoked to create a chilling effect within the civil society. India’s counter-terrorism laws have expanded over time to become increasingly overbroad and have often overturned basic procedural safeguards for defendants,” the organisations added.
Also read: Delhi LG Must Withdraw UAPA Sanction in Arundhati Roy Case: 200+ Academics, Activists, Journalists
The statement mentioned that Amnesty International and Front Line Defenders had submitted reports to the FATF secretariat last year, highlighting the misuse of counter-terrorism laws by Indian authorities to target civil society. The reports show how India’s counter-terrorism laws have expanded to become increasingly overbroad, overturning basic procedural safeguards for defendants.
The statement added: “To illustrate, in 2012, the Indian government broadened the already overbroad definition of a “terrorist act” under UAPA, strongly relying on FATF’s recommendations to make it “more effective in prevention of unlawful activities and dealing with terrorist activities”. It must also be noted that Indian government has been selective in enforcing FATF’s recommendations. For instance, in India’s 2010 Mutual Evaluation Report, FATF ranked India “Partially Compliant” on Special Recommendation II, which pertains to the criminalisation of anti-money laundering and countering of terrorist financing, highlighting UAPA’s deviation from international standards in defining a “terrorist act”.5 It noted that “the acts listed in Section 15(a) largely refer to common criminal activity that only obtains its terrorist status when carried out with a specific intent. Consequently, the general terminology (… by any other means of whatever nature …) used in Section 15(a) of the UAPA cannot be considered as corresponding with the Treaties offences.” Thirteen years later, the overbroad definition continues to exist and applied arbitrarily to human rights defenders in India.”
The organisations have urged the FATF and member countries to remind India of its commitment to comply with the FATF recommendations while preventing misuse of its standards, ensuring due process and procedural rights of individuals are followed and protected.
“We call on the Indian government to end the misuse of counter-terrorism laws and respect human rights standards,” said Amnesty International. “The FATF must ensure that its standards are not used to target civil society and stifle critical voices.”
