A group of former civil servants on Wednesday challenged the provisions of anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the Sup...
A group of former civil servants on Wednesday challenged the provisions of anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the Supreme Court, Live Law reported.
The Act gives absolute power to the Centre, which can deem an activity as unlawful by way of an Official Gazette and declare it so. Under the law, investigative agencies get 180 days to probe a case, compared to 60 to 90 days under ordinary criminal law. This means an accused is eligible to apply for bail only after six months.
The petitioners, including retired police officer Julio Ribeiro and human rights activist Harsh Mander, submitted that the rate of prosecution in UAPA cases was extremely low. They added that those charged under the draconian law were jailed for long periods of time and some died during their imprisonment.
They told the court that the average rate of conviction in UAPA cases was 2.19%. “Prosecution under the UAPA is either initiated in bad faith or the quality of the evidence is not sufficient, bringing into question the entire process of independent review prior to grant of sanction,” the petitioners said, according to Live Law.
The former officers said that Section 43D(5) of the anti-terror law, which deals with restrictions on granting bail, was “arbitrarily used to quell dissent”.
The petitioners...
