💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (June Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF

Indian government has recently strengthened the anti-terrorism laws by amending the unlawful activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 and the NIA Act. Analyze the changes in the context of prevailing security environment while discussing the scope and reasons for opposing the UAPA by human rights organizations.

In response to the evolving internal security threat posed by terrorism, GoI amended the UAPA, 1967 and NIA Act in 2019 to strengthen ‘zero tolerance for terrorism’ strategy.

Amendment to UAPA,1967

The central government can designate an individual as a terrorist (under Schedule IV of the Act)

Empowers the NIA officers of the rank of Inspector or above to investigate cases of terrorism

Adds the International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005) to the schedule

Empowers the Director-General, NIA to grant approval of seizure of property when the case is being investigated by the agency.

Amendment to NIA Act

Widen the authority of the NIA – Includes human trafficking, counterfeit currency, manufacture or sale of prohibited arms, cyber-terrorism, and offences under the Explosive Substances Act.

Extends the NIA’s jurisdiction outside India

Constitution of special courts by the Centre in order to conduct trials

Significance of the changes in the context of the prevailing security environment

Shifts counter-terror strategy from reactive to preventive – Enables early disruption of terror ecosystems.

Allows designation of individuals like Masood Azhar as terrorist

Brings Clarity and uniformity by removing inter-state jurisdictional constraints

Addresses evolving terror threat landscape – Responds to decentralised, module-based and lone-wolf terrorism.

Targets terror support networks – Focuses on financiers, facilitators, propagandists and over-ground workers. Eg- NIA Raids on separatist leaders in J&K

Improves investigation of transnational terror networks. Eg- Khalistan movement in Canada

Extend powers of NIA to investigate terrorist-organised crime linkage

Alignment with Global Counter-Terror Norms. Eg- Action against terror financing and international networks.

Ensures timely and speedy prosecution of terrorists through special courts

Criticism and Opposition by Human Rights Organisations

Violation of Personal Liberty – Stringent bail provisions and prolonged detention (180 days) affect Article 21.

Risk of Misuse – Broad definitions allow targeting of activists, journalists and dissenters.

Absence of Prior Judicial Oversight – Individual can be designated as terrorist without conviction or trial.

Departure from criminal jurisprudence norm of innocent until proven guilty – Burden of proof shifts to accused.

Low conviction rate for UAPA cases between 2019 and 2023 (only 3.1%)

Vague Definitions – Terms like “unlawful activity” and “terrorist act” are broadly defined

Lack of procedural safeguards – The government is not required to provide grounds for arrest or detention.

Against the federal structure – amendment has made the NIA “a parallel police structure”

Way Forward

Strengthen Procedural Safeguards

Clear Legal Definitions

Periodic review

Time-Bound Investigations and Trials

A law and institution as powerful as UAPA and NIA respectively, must be wielded with precision, accountability, and a deep commitment to constitutional values.