No ambiguity in UAPA provision criminalising membership of banned organisation: Supreme Court
1. No ambiguity in UAPA provision criminalising membership of banned organisation: Supreme Court
2. ====+====+====+====+====
3. Upholding Section 10(a)(i) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 , the Supreme Court said the provision is not vague or unreasonable. The said section of the Act criminalises membership of an unlawful organisation.
4. The court also set aside its 2011 judgments in Arup Bhuyan v State of Assam, Indra Das v State of Assam and Kerala State vs Ranif, which said That mere membership of the banned organization is not sufficient to constitute an offence under unlawful activities (prevention). The Act 1967 or the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, unless it is accompanied by something directly violent.
5. Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the People's Union for Democratic Rights , argued that section 10(a)(i) of the Act was struck down due to ambiguity. can go . It was argued that membership is the ambiguous term. Therefore, the possibility of innocent persons being trapped under this draconian law cannot be ruled out .
6. A division bench of Justices M R Shah, CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol rejected the argument .
7. The judgment , written by Justice M R Shah, said the organisation is declared unlawful after following due process.
8. Justice Shah said in the judgment,
9. "The person who is a member of such a banned organisation is aware of outlawing such an organisation and in spite of it if he is still Their intention is to continue to be a member of an unlawful organization which is involved in unlawful activities and is working against the sovereignty and integrity of India. It is very clear that he still wants to engage with an association which indulges in 'unlawful activities' and interests the sovereignty and integrity of India. Working against.
10.It was held that the language used in the section is very clear and there is no ambiguity in it. "Section 10(a) (i) of the Act is not unreasonable and/or disproportionate on grounds of ambiguity and/or reasonableness of any kind," the judgment said. The court also rejected the argument that the provision had a chilling effect on freedom of speech and the right to freedom of association. created.
11. It needs to be noted that the person is well aware that the organization of which he is a member is entitled to his unlawful activities and the sovereignty of India and It has been declared an unlawful organisation for working against the interests of integrity . Yet she continues to work with him. Such a person cannot be allowed to accumulate chilling effects after being a member of such an unlawful organization .
12.The results are provided under the Act itself. Such person is deemed and/or known to continue membership of such unlawful organization is a crime in itself. Despite such knowledge he is still liable to be punished if he continues".
13. Justice Sanjay Karol wrote a separate consensual judgment. In his judgment, Justice Karol clarified that a two-judge bench in the Arup Bhuyan, Indra Das and Ranif cases acted on the decisions of the US Supreme Court. Made a mistake by trusting that passive membership of a banned union cannot be a crime.
14.Justice Karol wrote,
15. "U.S. decisions mainly include indictments based on membership of political organizations or incidents of free speech advocating the overthrow of the government. However, under Indian law it is not membership of political organisations etc. or free speech or criticism of the government, which has been sought to be banned. , are the only organisations which aim to compromise the sovereignty and integrity of India and have been notified to be more unlawful, whose membership is banned.
16. It is in furthering the objective of the UAPA, which seeks to more effectively prevent certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and to deal with and relate to terrorist activities. Enacted for cases. Justice Shah also said that the reliance on the decisions of the US Supreme Court is wrong, "the laws in America and our country are different. In view of the different situation, especially Article 19(1)(c) and 19(4) of the Constitution are being faced.
17. In India under which the right to freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and not an absolute right.
18.Case Title:- Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam
19.Criminal Appeal No :- 889/2007