The prosecution has argued that the aim of the protests was “to destroy, destabilise and disintegrate the Government of India in order to compel (it) to withdraw the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and alleged National Register of Citizens.”Īlso in Explained | Ease of doing business: how states are ranked, what’s different now What makes the UAPA more stringent than other laws? While critics have argued that dissenting or protesting peacefully would not amount to causing “disaffection against India”, the police have told the court that the riots were a result of a bigger conspiracy to “overawe the government machinery”, and that the conspirators had a “specific purpose, object and mandate” to cause “disaffection and revolt against the Government of India”. How does Delhi Police justify invoking the anti-terror law? Section 17 provides for punishment for raising funds for terrorist acts, and Section 18 deals with conspiracy behind the terrorist act or “any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act”. The law defines a terrorist act as one that is intended to threaten or is likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, and causes or is likely to cause death or injuries, and property damage. Section 16 (“Punishment for terrorist act”) specifies punishment with death or imprisonment for life in case a death has occurred as a result of the act. Section 13 (“Punishment for unlawful activities”), which has been invoked against Khalid and others, provides for up to seven years in prison for anyone who “advocates, abets, advises or incites the commission of any unlawful activity”. The word “disaffection” has not been defined in the law, and finds mention only once. The Act defines unlawful activity as any action - spoken or written words, signs, or visible representation - which is intended or supports any claim to bring about secession of any part of India or which incites anyone towards secession disclaims, questions, disrupts or intends to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India and “which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India”. Sections 13, 16, 17, and 18 of the UAPA were added to the case subsequently. (Express PhotoL Ganesh Shirsekar) Which provisions of the UAPA have been used in the FIR? Police have also claimed to have gathered evidence against the accused in the form of WhatsApp chats that were allegedly used in the “execution of the conspiracy”, alleged witness statements, and evidence of the receipt of funds from within India and overseas.Īlso read | Before UAPA arrest, hurried goodbyes at Umar Khalid home Umar Khalid at a conference in Mumbai in January. Khalid is accused of giving provocative speeches and urging people to come out on the roads to ensure that the “propaganda of minorities in India are being persecuted” may get publicised during the visit of US President Donald Trump (on February 24-25). The core of the police case is that the “communal riot incidents” of February 2020 in Delhi were “pre-planned” by Khalid and the others. The investigation is based on FIR 59 of 2020, in which IPC Sections 302 (murder) 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.), 124A (sedition), and others have been included. Click here to join our channel stay updated with the latest What do police say in the case registered against Khalid and others? UAPA cases have been filed against activists in the Bhima- Koregaon case at least two journalists in Kashmir Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, members of the women students and alumni collective Pinjra Tod former Congress municipal councillor Ishrat Jahan Khalid Saifi of the organisation United Against Hate Jamia Millia Islamia student Safoora Zargar and now, Umar Khalid. It has of late been invoked against activists, student leaders, and journalists. The law has been used in cases other than those of conventional ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorist acts’. Following the last amendment in 2019, an individual can be designated a terrorist only organisations could be designated earlier. Amendments from time to time have made the UAPA more stringent.