"Centre designates Shahzad Bhatti Network as terrorist under UAPA"
Proscription
Official banning of an organisation as 'terrorist', making support a criminal offence.
Schedule IV (UAPA)
The list under which individuals may be designated as terrorists after 2019 amendment.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is India’s primary counter-terror statute. Its object has been to prevent activities that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. Over time Parliament expanded UAPA’s reach through major amendments. The 2004 and 2008 amendments broadened the definition of terrorist acts and strengthened central investigative powers. The 2019 amendment added a mechanism for designating individuals as terrorists and inserted procedural provisions that increased executive discretion.
Designating an entity as a terrorist organisation is an executive power exercised under Section 35(1) of the UAPA. Once the Central Government issues a notification, a statutory Tribunal reviews it. That Tribunal is headed by a sitting High Court judge, and the proscription may be confirmed, modified, or vacated. Parallel to designation is a stringent criminal procedure framework: Section 43D(5) constrains bail by ruling out release if the court is satisfied that the accusation is prima facie true. This combination of proscription plus limited relief on bail has been a focal point of constitutional critique, especially under Article 21 (life and personal liberty) and Article 19 (freedom of speech and association).
A proscription under Section 35(1) carries several legal effects. It criminalises membership, fundraising, and support to the proscribed entity. It enables law enforcement agencies to attach assets, block digital content linked to the organisation, and pursue cross-jurisdictional investigations. Designation also hardens evidential and procedural postures in court because the statutory framework imposes higher hurdles for bail and narrows disclosure obligations in certain instances.
The 2019 amendment that permits individual designation is significant for two reasons. …
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.
Analyse the multidimensional challenges posed by external state and non-state actors, to the internal security of India. Also discuss measures required to be taken to combat these threats.
The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) by our adversaries across the borders to ferry arms/ammunitions, drugs, etc., is a serious threat to the internal security. Comment on the measures being taken to tackle this threat.
Match the following UAPA provisions with their function:
A.Section 35(1)
B.Section 43D(5)
C.Tribunal headed by HC judge
1.Bail bar if accusation is prima facie true
2.Review proscription notifications
3.Power to notify organisations as terrorist
Choose the correct match.
Which of the following statements about designation under the UAPA are correct? 1. Section 35(1) empowers the Central Government to notify an organisation as a terrorist organisation. 2. Proscription under Section 35(1) automatically convicts members without trial. 3. A Tribunal headed by a sitting High Court judge reviews proscription notifications. Select the correct answer.
Assertion (A): The 2019 amendment to the UAPA allowed the Central Government to designate individuals as terrorists. Reason (R): This amendment removed Tribunal review of proscription notifications. Choose the correct option.
Which of the following is a direct operational consequence of notifying an organisation under UAPA? 1. Criminalisation of membership and fundraising for the organisation. 2. Automatic closure of the organisation's bank accounts without any procedure. 3. Legal authority to order digital platforms to block content linked to the organisation. Select the correct answer.
Consider the following statements about contemporary terror networks that mix organised crime and ideological aims: 1. Recruitment primarily through local community leaders rules out digital recruitment. 2. Monetary incentives can be as significant as ideology for one set of recruits. 3. Cross-border leadership necessitates international legal cooperation for effective prosecution. Which statements are correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account