Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967

• 10 Jan 2026

For Prelims: Supreme Court of India,  16th Constitutional Amendment , National Investigation Agency,  International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism  

For Mains: Evolution of UAPA and its constitutional implications, Balance between national security and civil liberties

Source:IE 

Why in News?  

The Supreme Court of India denied bail in the 2020 Delhi riots case, relying on the wide definition of a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 

• The decision has renewed debate on how the anti-terror law has expanded far beyond conventional notions of terrorism.

Summary

•  The UAPA has evolved from a limited post-Independence law into a wide-ranging anti-terror framework, with Section 15’s broad definition of terrorism and stringent bail norms extending the law far beyond conventional notions of terrorism. 
• While the UAPA remains crucial for national security and global counterterror commitments, targeted reforms such as clearer definitions, fairer bail provisions, speedy trials, compensation for wrongful detention, and stronger oversight are essential to balance security with democratic values.

What is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967? 

• About: The UAPA,1967 is India’s principal anti-terror and national security law to curb activities threatening sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India 
  • The UAPA traces its origins to the National Integration Council formed under Jawaharlal Nehru, aimed at tackling communalism, regionalism, and linguistic chauvinism.  
    • Its recommendations led to the 16th Constitutional Amendment (1963), which imposed reasonable restrictions on free speech, assembly, and association in the interest of national integrity, and the UAPA was enacted to enforce these constitutional changes. 
  • Enacted in 1967, the law initially targeted unlawful activities threatening India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the post-Independence period marked by secessionist and anti-national movements, and did not address terrorism in its original form. 
• Evolution of UAPA: 
  • 2004 Amendment: Introduced terrorism into the UAPA by adding Chapter IV (Sections 15–23) on terrorist acts and punishments.  
    • It defined terrorism as violent acts intended to threaten India’s security or strike terror among people, and expanded the scope of “unlawful activity” to include acts causing disaffection against India. 
  • 2008 Amendment: After the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Parliament widened Section 15 by adding the phrase “by any other means,” expanding terrorism to a broad range of acts.  
    • The amendment tightened bail norms by barring anticipatory bail, made regular bail extremely difficult, extended custody periods, and introduced a presumption of guilt  in specified cases. 
  • 2012 Amendment: Expanded the definition of terrorism to include threats to economic security, covering financial, food, energy, livelihood, and environmental security.  
    • They also classified counterfeit currency offences as terrorist acts and extended liability to companies, trusts, and societies, with office-bearers presumed responsible unless proven otherwise. 
  • 2019 Amendment: It permitted the designation of individuals as terrorists, not just organisations, and enhanced the National Investigation Agency (NIA) powers, including property seizure without state consent. 
• Definition of Terrorism: Under Section 15 of the UAPA,1967 a “terrorist act” is defined as any act committed with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security, or economic security of India, or to strike terror among people in India or in any foreign country. 
  • The law covers acts committed using explosives, firearms, poisons, chemicals, hazardous substances, or “any other means” 
  • Under the UAPA, terrorist acts are punishable with imprisonment for a minimum term of five years, which may extend to life imprisonment, and where such acts result in death, the punishment may be death or life imprisonment, thereby covering serious and violent offences. 
  • The broad wording allows acts likely to cause fear or disruption to be prosecuted as terrorism. 

What are the Arguments in Favor and Arguments Against UAPA? 

Arguments in Favor: 

• Protection of National Security: Provides the legal basis for preventive action against terrorism, insurgency, and activities threatening India’s sovereignty, integrity, and economic security, enabling the State to act before violence escalates. 
• Preventive Detention as a Security Tool: Allows detention of suspects to pre-empt imminent threats, especially in cases involving riots, radicalisation, or organised extremist networks where waiting for attacks could cause mass harm. 
• Alignment with International Conventions: Brings Indian law in line with global counterterror norms, including UN instruments such as the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997), and International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999), enabling international cooperation and compliance with UNSC resolutions. 
• Deterrence Against Terror Activities: Stringent punishments and long sentences serve as a deterrent against participation in or support for terrorism, signalling zero tolerance for acts threatening national security. 
• Disruption of Terror Financing: Criminalises terror funding, money laundering, and counterfeit currency operations, addressing the financial backbone of terrorism. 

Arguments Against: 

• Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty): UAPA enables prolonged detention, denial of bail, and reversal of the presumption of innocence, making personal liberty the exception rather than the rule, contrary to constitutional safeguards. 
  • After the Supreme Court of India ruling in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2020), courts are discouraged from examining evidence in detail while deciding bail, reducing judicial oversight. 
• Arbitrary Designation of Individuals as Terrorists: The state can label individuals as “terrorists” without prior conviction, undermining the presumption of innocence and damaging the right to reputation and privacy. 
• Overbroad definition of terrorism: Terms like “likely to threaten” or “likely to strike terror” allow punishment for potential or anticipated acts, violating the principle of legal certainty and proportionality. 
  • UN Special Rapporteurs (2020) flagged UAPA as incompatible with global human rights standards like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), noting the absence of a clear, narrow definition of terrorism. 
• Discretionary Police Powers: Searches, seizures, and arrests can be made based on the personal knowledge of police officers, with limited judicial oversight, increasing the risk of arbitrary state action. 
• Criminalisation of Dissent and Free Speech: Peaceful protests, political speech, and questioning state policies risk being labelled as threats to national security, undermining Article 19, which protects free expression and association. 
  • Fear of arrest, long incarceration, and social stigma has a chilling effect on activism, journalism, and political participation, eroding the democratic ethos. 

What Reforms are Needed to Strengthen the UAPA? 

• Clarifying Vague Definitions: Terms such as terrorist act, unlawful activity, and conspiracy should be narrowly defined to prevent misuse.  
• Reforming Stringent Bail Provisions: Stringent bail provisions under UAPA should be amended to reaffirm the presumption of innocence, a core principle flowing from Article 21 and settled criminal jurisprudence, with Article 20(3) reinforcing fair trial protections. 
• Ensuring Speedy Trials: Prolonged trials undermine justice and drain public resources. 
  • A PUCL report (2022) noted that less than 3% of UAPA cases between 2015–2020 resulted in convictions, underscoring the need for fast-track courts and strict timelines. 
• Introducing a Compensation Framework: Victims of wrongful arrest and prolonged detention must be compensated.  
  • In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), the Supreme Court recognised compensation as a remedy for illegal detention, a principle that should be codified under UAPA. 
• Strengthening Oversight and Transparency: Regular parliamentary review, public disclosure of UAPA data, and clear operational guidelines for agencies can ensure accountability and prevent arbitrary application.

Conclusion 

The UAPA is vital for national security but its overbroad scope and harsh procedures threaten constitutional liberties. Without safeguards, it risks normalising detention and suppressing dissent. Targeted reforms are needed to balance security with democracy. 

Drishti Mains Question: 

Suggest reforms to ensure that anti-terror laws remain effective without undermining democratic freedoms.

 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

1. What is the primary objective of the UAPA? 
To prevent activities threatening India’s sovereignty, integrity, unity, and national security.

2. Why is Section 15 of the UAPA controversial? 
It defines terrorism in broad terms, including acts committed by “any other means,” enabling wide interpretation.

3. What constitutional concern is most associated with UAPA? 
Violation of Article 21, due to prolonged detention, denial of bail, and dilution of the presumption of innocence.

4. What reforms are suggested to improve the UAPA? 
Narrower definitions, fairer bail provisions, speedy trials, compensation for wrongful detention, and stronger oversight mechanisms.

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Question (PYQ) 

Mains

Q. 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 the prevailing security environment while discussing scope and reasons for opposing the UAPA by human rights organizations. (2019)