When Words become weapons: How anti-terror law silencing dissent
Have you ever wondered what happens when a law designed When Words Become Weapons: How Anti-Terror Laws are Silencing Dissent keep a country safe is turned against its own citizens? Today, we need to talk about a growing crisis in our legal system. It involves the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), a strict anti-terror law.
Recently, Senior Advocate Rebecca John gave a powerful speech highlighting how this law is being misused. She spoke at a public meeting held to mark the fifth death anniversary of Father Stan Swamy, an elderly man who lost his life waiting for justice. Her words are a wake-up call for anyone who cares about basic freedom and human rights. Let us break down what is happening, why it matters, and how the rules are changing in ways that should concern all of us.
The Danger of Labeling Speech as "Terrorism"
When we hear the word "terrorist," we usually think of extreme physical violence. According to Rebecca John, the actual written text of Section 15 of the UAPA law agrees with this common-sense view. The law clearly states that a "terrorist act" requires the use of weapons to establish physical violence.
However, things are shifting in the courts, and the definition is being stretched in alarming ways. The Supreme Court has started expanding the meaning of a terrorist act to include "speech-related offenses". We saw this clearly in the Gulfisha Fatima case, which is tied to the Delhi riots larger conspiracy. By changing the definition, the court was able to deny bail to individuals like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
Why is this so terrifying? Because, as John warned, making speech a terrorist act opens the door to treating almost any political disagreement as terrorism. If speaking out against the government can get you locked up under a law meant for violent extremists, then our basic right to dissent is in serious trouble. The dangers of expanding this law are massive. It puts a target on the back of anyone who dares to raise their voice.
The Heartbreaking Story of Father Stan Swamy
To truly understand how this law hurts people, we have to look at what happened to Father Stan Swamy. He was an elderly man whose body was severely weakened by Parkinson’s disease. He was arrested and put in jail in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case, a trial that has dragged on for more than six years without an end in sight.
Five years ago, Father Stan died in custody. He was just waiting for bail.
What makes his death even more tragic is how easily it could have been prevented. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government set up a special committee to release certain prisoners on temporary bail to stop the virus from spreading in crowded jails. Father Stan was the absolute prime candidate to be sent home. His old age, his terrible battle with Parkinson’s disease, and the fact that he actually caught COVID-19 while locked up in jail should have been more than enough to release him.
Rebecca John pointed out that normal health vulnerabilities and old age would usually guarantee release in a civilized system. But there was a deadly exception made. The committee decided that anyone jailed for UAPA offenses and investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) would not be allowed out.
Because of this rule, Father Stan Swamy remained trapped. The release rules were completely irrational and went against Article 21 of the Constitution, which is supposed to guarantee every citizen the right to life. The law was transformed into a tool of oppression. By keeping him locked up, the state exposed a frail, vulnerable old man to a deadly virus. Rebecca John admitted she did not know Father Stan personally, but she felt the deep injustice of his imprisonment and the heartbreaking injustice of his death.
Jail Without Guilt: The Process is the Punishment
You might be asking yourself, "How can someone be kept in jail for years without a judge finding them guilty?"
The shocking truth about the UAPA is that you do not need to be proven guilty to lose years of your life in a prison cell. The law contains specific rules, like Section 43D(5), which make it almost impossible to get bail. Because of how the Supreme Court interpreted this rule in a case known as the Zahoor Ahmad Watali judgment, simply being accused of a crime is enough to hand a person a multi-year sentence.
There was a brief moment of hope in a case called KA Najeeb. In that judgment, the court suggested that if a trial is being delayed for an unreasonable amount of time, the strict rules preventing bail should "melt down" to allow the person out. Many people wanted to look at the Najeeb ruling as a victory for personal liberty. But John heavily criticized it, calling it nothing more than an apology from a court system that had already completely shut the door on bail.
Even that tiny bit of hope did not last long. In the Gulfisha judgment, the court created new hurdles, stating that bail requires "individualized scrutiny". This move diluted the positive steps from the Najeeb case. It created a twisted reality where our basic constitutional freedoms are constantly trying to play catch-up with harsh legislative rules. It should be the other way around—the laws should be scrutinized to ensure they respect our constitutional rights.
Sloppy Investigations and Rushed Courts
When people are locked up for years waiting for a trial, you would hope the police are spending that time building a strong, fact-based case. Unfortunately, Rebecca John pointed out that there is massive evidence showing investigations and prosecutions under the UAPA are often of incredibly shoddy quality. This sloppy police work is a huge reason why people sit in pre-trial custody for so long.
So, how is the Supreme Court handling these delays? Instead of looking deeply into the bad evidence, the court is acting like a manager. They have ordered the government to set up additional special courts just to speed up the UAPA trials.
But rushing a broken system does not fix it. The Supreme Court does not seem interested in questioning the terrible quality of the evidence. They are ignoring the massive risks to the accused people's right to a fair trial. This mindless push to simply move things faster is happening in a system that already has highly questionable standards for fairness. Fast trials do not mean fair trials, especially when the accused people often have very poor legal representation.
Faceless Witnesses and the Death of a Fair Trial
One of the most disturbing parts of UAPA trials involves "protected witnesses". Imagine trying to defend yourself against serious charges, but you are not allowed to know who is accusing you.
Under this system, the statements given by witnesses are handed to the accused anonymously. Parts of these statements are heavily edited and redacted to the point where they are completely impossible to understand.
When it is time for the trial, these protected witnesses are seated behind an opaque screen. The accused person and their lawyer cannot see them at all. Because they have no idea who the witness is, where they come from, or what their full statement was, it is impossible for the lawyer to properly cross-examine them.
This completely destroys the foundation of a fair trial. John strongly stated that this kind of secret, faceless process would be unacceptable in any normal criminal trial. But it is especially horrible in cases handled by the NIA, where the case files are thousands of pages long and multiple people are facing extreme punishments. Most of the people caught in this system come from poor, marginalized backgrounds and do not have the money to hire top-tier lawyers. The system is completely stacked against them.
A Government Obsessed with Punishment
If you want to see how the system is designed to punish rather than find the truth, just look at the recent actions of the NIA.
The agency recently tried to cancel the bail of four UAPA accused people for one simple reason: they were seen together at an event at the press club. Rebecca John pointed out that this move perfectly shows the mindset of the state. The government is far more committed to causing as much pain and punishment as possible through the criminal process than it is to making sure trials are fair and efficient. Even when people manage to get bail, the state tries to isolate them and make their lives miserable.
This public meeting highlighting these issues was heavily attended by concerned citizens. Activists and thinkers like Advocate Nizam Pasha, Nadeem Khan, Professor Saroj Giri, retired Professor Nandini Sundar, and senior journalist John Dayal were all present to show their support.
No Lessons Learned
It has been five long years since Father Stan Swamy died alone in a prison cell. Despite the outrage and the obvious tragedy of his death, absolutely no lessons have been learned. The deep concerns over the abuse of the UAPA are just as strong today as they were years ago.
We are living in a reality where the government can brand your words as terrorism, where elderly sick men are left to die without a guilty verdict, and where people are forced to defend their lives against faceless accusers. It is a stark reminder that we must pay attention to how our laws are being used. When fundamental rights are stripped away in the name of security, nobody is truly safe.
FAQs
How has the Supreme Court changed the definition of a "terrorist act" under the UAPA?
The Supreme Court has expanded the definition of a terrorist act under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) to include speech-related offenses, which was notably seen in the Gulfisha Fatima case. Originally, the actual text of Section 15 clearly states that a terrorist act requires the use of weapons to establish physical violence. Senior advocate Rebecca John warned that this alarming expansion risks allowing any and all political dissent to be prosecuted as terrorism.
Why was Father Stan Swamy denied release during the COVID-19 pandemic despite his poor health?
Father Stan Swamy was a prime candidate for release due to his old age, severe Parkinson's disease, and having contracted COVID-19 in jail. However, the high-powered committee set up to decongest jails during the pandemic created exceptions for prisoners charged under the UAPA and investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). This irrational classification, which kept him incarcerated and exposed him to the virus, was heavily criticized as being wholly contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution.
How can someone be kept in jail for years under the UAPA without being proven guilty?
The UAPA does not require a finding of guilt to keep someone incarcerated for years because accusation alone functions as a multi-year sentence. This is primarily due to strict bail provisions like Section 43D(5), especially after the Supreme Court's Zahoor Ahmad Watali judgment. While the KA Najeeb judgment briefly suggested that these strict bail rules could "melt down" during unreasonably delayed trials, the subsequent Gulfisha judgment created new hurdles by requiring "individualized scrutiny", making it extremely difficult for accused individuals to get bail.
What is the issue with "protected witnesses" in UAPA trials?
The use of protected witnesses allows the state to supply accused persons with anonymous and heavily redacted witness statements, making them nearly impossible to understand. Furthermore, these witnesses testify from behind an opaque partition, completely out of sight of the accused and their lawyers. This practice eliminates the possibility of effective cross-examination and strikes at the root of fair trial principles, which is especially harmful to accused persons from socioeconomic marginalized backgrounds who lack quality legal representation.
0 Comments