For the past six weeks, an unprecedented coordination effort has been underway, uniting left parties, progressive organisations, human rights groups, and people’s movements across the state. This united front—comprising the CPI, CPI(M), Shetkari Kamgar Paksh, CPIML, Lal Nishan Party, Satyashodhak Communist Party, Shramik Mukti Dal, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), PUCL, and Sarvahara Jan Andolan, among others—has culminated in this planned day of state-wide action. Major opposition parties including the Maha Vikas Aghadi and its constituents—Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), Indian National Congress, and NCP (Sharad Pawar)—have also publicly extended their support to these protests.

Thousands of pamphlets have been disseminated across the state, particularly those authored by CJP, outlining the bill’s draconian provisions and urging citizens to join the resistance. The agitation on April 22 will span virtually every major district in Maharashtra, covering district collectorates, tehsil and taluka offices, and important public squares. In Mumbai, demonstrators will gather outside the Collectorate in Bandra. In Pune, protests will take place at the Collectorate and in Ambegaon and Junnar. In Nagpur, the protest will take place around Samvidhan Chowk. Thane district will see action at the Collector’s Office, as well as in Vikramgad, Dahanu, Talasari, Jawhar, and Palghar tehsils. Additional protest locations in Thane include Shahapur tehsil.

Planned protests across Maharashtra

On April 22, widespread demonstrations, dharnas, and sit-ins will be held at government offices, district collectorates, and tehsil headquarters across multiple districts of the state. The key protest sites include:

• Mumbai – At the Collector’s Office, Bandra
• Pune – Collectorate and Ambegaon, Junnar offices
• Nashik – Collectorate and Tehsildar Offices in Surgana, Kalwan, Dindori, Chandwad, Peth, Trimbak, Nandgaon, Malegaon, Malegaonshahar, and Niphad
• Thane – Vikramgad, Dahanu, Talasari, Jawhar, Palghar, Shahapur Tehsildar’s Office and District Collectorate
• Ahmednagar (Ahilyanagar) – Collectorate, Sangamner Provincial Office, Shevgaon Tehsil Office
• Nagpur – Samvidhan Chowk
• Wardha – Collector’s Office
• Amravati – Collector’s Office and Tehsildar’s Office
• Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar – Divisional Commissioner’s Office
• Jalna – Collector’s Office and Partur Provincial Office
• Nanded, Satara, Sangli, Jalgaon, Solapur, Dhule, Chandrapur, Akola, Gondiya, Bhandara – Collector’s Offices
• Parbhani – Collector’s Office and Tehsil Offices at Shelu, Manawat, Pathri, and Purna
• Buldhana – Tehsildar Offices at Khamgaon, Malkapur, Sangrampur
• Gadchiroli – Tehsildar’s Office, Armori
• Raigad – Uran Tehsildar’s Office
• Kolhapur District – Protests coordinated by the Left Front at multiple locations: Collector’s Office, Ichalkaranji, Gadhinglaj, Kagal, Ajra, Radhanagari, Bhudargad, and Shahuwadi Tehsildar’s Offices

These demonstrations are expected to bring together thousands of protestors, including workers, farmers, students, lawyers, and community organisers. The agitation has witnessed an unprecedented unification of ideological and political forces.

Concerns about the bill

The scale and intensity of the agitation reflect the deep concern that the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 poses a grave threat to democratic freedoms and civil liberties. Although framed by the state as a public safety initiative, the bill has been widely criticised for granting the government extensive powers to enable surveillance, detain, and suppress dissent. Civil liberties groups, including CJP and other rights organisations, warn that the legislation empowers the state to criminalise peaceful protest and legitimate political expression under vague definitions of “unlawful activity.”

Incidentally, the Maharashtra government had invited public comments and criticisms on the Bill, to be submitted by April 1. Among thousands of others, Citizens for Justice and Peace had also submitted an elaborate critique. This may be read here.

Problematic sections

The Advisory Board envisaged under Section 5 is also problematic. Unlike earlier legal frameworks which mandated sitting or retired High Court judges, this Bill allows for individuals merely qualified to be appointed judges, diluting judicial independence and creating scope for politically aligned appointments.

The Bill also provides for arbitrary seizure and eviction powers. Section 9 empowers District Magistrates or Police Commissioners to take over any notified area and evict its residents with little to no legal oversight. Section 10 further extends this to allow the confiscation of moveable property, which could be used to cripple individuals or organisations financially.

Perhaps most shockingly, Section 12 bars those detained under this law from seeking redress in district courts, forcing them to approach only the High Court or Supreme Court. This effectively removes a critical layer of legal protection for common citizens and disproportionately affects the poor and marginalised who may lack the means to access higher courts.

Finally, Sections 14 and 15 grant blanket immunity to police officers and bureaucrats, even in cases where they are found to have abused the law. This creates a culture of impunity, with no accountability for misuse or excesses.

A direct threat to Constitutional freedoms

Legal experts and rights groups assert that the MSPS Bill poses a serious threat to several constitutional rights, including:

• Article 19 – Freedom of speech, assembly, and association
• Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
• Article 14 – Right to equality before the law

By granting unchecked powers to the executive and removing essential judicial safeguards, the Bill represents an alarming shift toward authoritarian governance. The concerns raised go beyond legal technicalities—this is a battle to preserve the democratic ethos of Maharashtra and, by extension, India.

In response, this April 22 protest will serve as a powerful expression of public resistance. It is not just a symbolic protest, but a collective demand for the preservation of democracy, civil liberties, and constitutional values in Maharashtra. The coming together of political parties, civil society groups, and grassroots organisations is a rare but urgent show of unity against legislation that threatens to fundamentally alter the relationship between the state and its citizens.

Related:

Understanding the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 | Threat to Civil Liberties?

CJP sends objections against Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, citing grave threats to civil liberties

Press Release: Experts warn, Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill a threat to civil liberties

Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill: Bogey of “urban naxals” invoked to legitimise clamping down of dissent?

The post Maharashtra Rises in Protest: State-wide agitation against draconian Maharashtra Public Safety Bill on April 22 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a statement critiquing the move of the Modi government on the last day of the 2023 monsoon session of Parliament, Kirti Roy of Masum has raised serious issues over the new sections introduced and the enhanced punishments.

Section 150 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 reveals that the word ‘sedition’ has been removed but the spirit of the sedition law is very much existent in the new section. At any moment of time when the government in power has or is given by law, the ultimate authority to determine whether an act/ observation/opinion/association is “anti-national or against the integrity of the nation” this paves the way for the misuse of this draconian legal provision against any dissent.

Section 150 of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill details the codes while discussing the acts, which “endanger” the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. It states: “Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”  This definition is not in any way different to the original one in Indian Penal Code under section 124A  either in letter and spirit.

The explanation of the law appears incomplete. It also brings into its purview the potential to criminalize protests against any action or inaction of the government authority. By using the words ‘subversive activity’ which are not only vague but can be used to restrict democratic activities denouncing the government’s policies and actions. This is a direct attack on the fundamental constitutional rights of the citizens of India. The Constitution of India guarantees the right to protest under Article 19 (1) (b) and is a basic fundamental freedom incorporated by the makers of our constitution which is being demolished with this new section. The dissenting voice and the human rights defenders are both at risk and at stake.

The new criminal bills also introduce new offences with stricter punishment.

Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita incorporates a new crime as the ‘Terrorist act’ under general penal law. For dealing with terrorist activities there are special laws like UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967). Then why have the features of the UAPA which are in existence now being brought into the new penal provisions presented by the government?

To define terrorist acts it explicitly refers under section 111 (1) (iv), “ to provoke or influence by intimidation the Government or its organization, in such a manner so as to cause or likely to cause death or injury to any public functionary or any person or an act of detaining any person and threatening to kill or injure such person in order to compel the Government to do or abstain from doing any act, or destabilize or destroy the political, economic, or social structures of the country, or create a public emergency or undermine public safety.” This definition is vague as well echoing the same position which exists in the special UAPA provisions. It can be misused by the government authorities to take vengeance against the opposition, human rights workers and dissent voices who raise their opinion against the government.

Whil most of the civilized countries of the world have moved towards abolishing the death penalty in the 21^st century, newly introduced crimes like mob lynching under the BNS will attract the death penalty! This from a country that will preside over the 18th G-20 summit next month. Mob lynching and all crimes introduced in accordance with the Optional II protocol of the ICCPR will attract the death penalty.

These three bills denounce the basic concept of the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence i.e., “assume innocence until proven guilty”. The Supreme Court in its various judgments clearly denounces handcuffing and roping (Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Administration 1980 SCC 526 / Citizens for Democracy vs. State of Assam and others-(1995) 3SCC743) but the present Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita allows the savage act of handcuffing for the arrest of persons in many cases including murder, rape and counterfeit currency.

The manner of introduction of these three bills is also improper. The bills were introduced on the last day of the monsoon session leading to inadequate consultation in Parliament regarding these bills. These new elements related to the judicial process should have been placed before the law commission prior to tabling it before the parliament. By this act, the present government made it clear that they wish to supersede and bypass the legal fraternity and due process of consultative democratic governance.

These changes in the criminal justice administration system can be dubbed as pseudo-progressive change. This act of the present government is a sinister design to communalise the judicial process of the country by Sanskritization the nomenclature of the legal provisions, which is undemocratic and colonial in nature. The present social-economic legal situation of this country demands a democratic change in these legal acts, provisions and procedures.

Therefore, the statement on behalf of MASUM, calls upon every academic, individual, member of political parties, NGOs, CBOs and organizations to come forward and discuss the intended changes for a constructive and democratic discourse on the present legal provisions and protest against the government’s constant attempt to suppress the dissenting voice.

The statement has been signed by Kirity Roy, Secretary, Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM)

The post Draconian not anti-colonial: Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the meeting, serious concerns were raised about the attacks on the civil liberty of people and the indiscriminate use of draconian laws by the state to silence its critics. The political misuse of the investigative agencies by the government was also condemned. But the main focus of the meeting was the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA). This law, with even more stringent provisions was brought in as a permanent counter-terror law in 2004 after the repeal of POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2003). Activists and other speakers demanded that the UAPA, amended in 2008 and 201 since, should be repealed without any delay.

One of the reasons for demanding its repeal is the way the police and investigative agencies have interpreted the act of terrorism. For example, the criticisms of the government and the top political executive have been seen as “disaffection against India” and the dissenters have been charged with cases under UAPA. Once a person gets arrested under the UAPA, the chances of getting bail become remote. This is because in the UAPA case, the responsibility to prove innocence is put on the accused. This goes against the liberal notion of jurisprudence, where granting bail is a rule and keeping one in jail is treated as an exception.

The spirit of the law, however, is reversed in the UAPA case. In the normal circumstance, an accused is presumed innocent, unless she/he is proven guilty. But in the UAPA case, the burden to prove one’s innocence is laid on the accused. As has been seen, the accused arrested under the UAPA cases have spent several years in jail without the filing of the chargesheet by the police and the beginning of the trial by the court.

During the Freedom Struggle, the issue of civil liberty figured prominently and the nationalist leaders spoke strongly against its violation by the colonial state. But the post-Independence democratic state has not only continued with the colonial sedition law but added a few extra-constitutional laws to its quiver. Several petitions challenging the constitutionality of the UAPA are pending in the Supreme Court, yet to be deliberated upon.

Bhushan is of the opinion that the investigative agencies have been widely misused by the ruling establishment. For example, an overwhelming number of cases slapped by the ED are against the opposition leaders. In the meeting, he, therefore, reiterated the need for an independent functioning of the investigative agencies and employing a fair selection process for choosing their top officers.

At the time when the meeting was being held at the Press Club in New Delhi, another campaign, for the release of the Adivasi Rights journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh was going on. He has completed a year in jail. Last year on July 17, 2022, Rupesh was arrested by Jharkhand police. He was charged with different sections of IPC as well as UAPA. At present, he is in Patna’s Beur Jail.

Human rights activists argue that Rupesh’s only “crime” is that he, as a journalist, wrote stories against the ongoing plunder by the corporate houses. He highlighted the violation of the special provisions enshrined in the Constitution for the protection of the Adivasi lands. After he was jailed, the family suffered hardship.

Her 38-year-old wife Ipsa Shatakshi was fired from her teaching job at a private school, a few months after his arrest. Facing a financial crisis, she has to offer private tuition to feed his family and pay for the education of her six-year-old son, Agrim. Besides, she needs resources to fight the legal battle for justice for her husband.

While we are aware of the case of Rupesh, there are other prisoners arrested under draconian laws about whom the mainstream press hardly writes a few words.

The violation of the civil rights of the political prisoners of the Bhima Koregaon cases is yet to become an issue in the mainstream media. The accused have spent almost five years without any substantive investigation by the police. It seems that the main motive of the police in the UAPA cases is not to investigate the allegation but to delay the process so that the prisoners keep languishing in jail year after year.

Such a negative trend has also been seen in the 2020 Delhi-riots cases. Umar Khalid has been denied bail even after he has spent one thousand days in jail. Sharjeel Imam and Meeran Haider, other anti-CAA activists who were arrested much before Umar, are yet to get out of jail on bail.

According to one estimate, over one thousand people are put in jail under different cases related to the Delhi riots and about whom the media hardly report anything. Thus prosecution itself has become punishment for most of these detainees who may be set free by the courts finding them innocent.

While there are enough provisions in the IPC to punish criminals and maintain law and order, the state has enacted several extra-constitutional laws to punish dissenters. The draconian laws are often justified in the name of national security, but it is largely misused against the most vulnerable sections and the political opponents of the government. Such a policy does not work for national integration but gives birth to discontent in society.

The figures from the National Crime Records Bureau for 2019 show that the people arrested under the UAPA have seen an increase of over 72% from 2015 when the Modi Government came to power. A democratic polity is different from an authoritarian regime in the sense that the former ensures the protection of civil rights.

(First published in News Trail, Bengaluru)

(The author is a Delhi-based journalist)

Related:

Pasmanda Muslims need justice, not merely lip service

Adivasis wants protection of identity & rights, not uniform laws: Prof Virginius Xaxa

The post ‘Prosecution Itself is Punishment for Them’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One common factor among all these laws, national or state level, is that they give unchecked immunity “in acts in good faith” performed by law enforcement agencies.

Let us have a look at these outdated laws that have been used by several governments over the years, all of which violate fundamental human rights.

NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 (NSA)

Despite the NSA being a central law, it is being increasingly used by states to detain individuals. Its misuse has even been brought into question by the Supreme Court. In recent times, the apex court expressed shock that NSA was invoked against Samajwadi Party leader Yusuf Malik in a revenue recovery case without application of mind. In another case, NSA was invoked by Tamil Nadu against a YouTuber from Bihar who was arrested for spreading fake videos of attacks on migrant worker and the apex court questioned this decision as well.

• Under the NSA, a person is detained to prevent him or her from acting in any manner prejudicial to “the security of the state” or for “maintenance of public order” or “to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community”
• Such authority to detain lies, apart from the Central and state government, with the District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police; thus allowing detention on a mere administrative order.
• Such Order of Detention can be issued for a period of three months at a time and the administrative order has to be approved by the state government within 12 days of issue, for it to remain operative for 3 months.
• Section 5A of the NSA states that if detention is made on multiple grounds, then the order will be deemed to have been made separately for each ground. This means that even if all but one ground is held by the Court to be vague or invalid, even that one ground would still remain and the detention order sustained.
• The grounds of detention are to be communicated to the detainee within five days or latest within 15 days in exceptional circumstances.
• The detention order is to be placed before Advisory Board within three weeks whereby it shall consider the grounds and the detainee’s representation.
• Once confirmed by the Board, the person can be detained up to one year. Once this period expires, the person can be detained once again without any fresh facts, for another period of one year.
• Under section 14A, the detention order can be extended beyond three months, without the Board’s confirmation, for up to six months if the person is detained to prevent him in any “disturbed area” from interfering with efforts of Government in coping with the terrorist and disruptive activities as also from acting in manner prejudicial to defence, security of the nation and state, maintenance of public order or maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community
• Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal had authorised the Delhi Commissioner of Police to detain people under the National Security Act till October 18, 2021 amid the farmers’ protest and then upcoming Independence Day celebrations.
• Dalit leader Chandrashekhar Azad had been detained by the Yogi Adityanath led UP govt in November 2017 for his alleged involvement in violence over installation of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s statue in Sharanpur in May that year. One year later, Azad was released from detention after this decision was challenged before Supreme Court.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR PUBLIC SAFETY ACT, 1978 (PSA)

• The law was brought in by the state’s first chief minister, Shaikh Abdullah in 1978 to prevent timber smuggling (and detain smugglers in prison) allows the state to detain persons up to two years without trial.
• Its provisions are similar to NSA but was enacted two years before the national law.
• Under section 3 and 4, the government has power to declare any place or area as prohibited or protected vide a notified order and any person, even unaware of such a notified status of the place can be imprisoned for contravention.
• Under section 6, the Government may deem any document to be detrimental to communal, sectarian or regional harmony or even public order and can prevent its circulation within the State.
• Under section 8, a person can be detained if he/she is deemed to be prejudicial to public order.­
• The reference to the Advisory Board, about the detention order, is to be made within 4 weeks and once confirmed by the Board, the person can be detained for up to 2 years
• Section 19 grants the Government the power to re-issue a detention order on basis of same facts.
• A report published by Amnesty International states that in a written reply to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir in January 2017, the then-Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti stated that from 2007 to 2016, over 2400 PSA detention orders were passed, of which about 58% were quashed by courts.
• The PSA was indiscriminately used in the erstwhile state after August 5, 2019 to detain political leaders after Article 370 was abrogated by the Parliament.
• A detailed analysis of the Act may be read here.

THE ARMED FORCES (SPECIAL POWER) ACT, 1958 (AFSPA)

• AFSPA gives the armed forces the power to maintain public order in “disturbed areas”
• It was passed to curb increasing violence in north-east states in 1950s
• The law gives a free hand to armed forces to maintain law and order in these disturbed areas declared so from time to time by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
• The armed forces may use force or fire at anyone found contravening the law (for instance violating the curfew or assembling in larger numbers). They may also detain a person without warrant and search any place without warrant
• AFSPA was revoked in Meghalaya as of April 1, 2018 and in Tripura in 2015
• Under section 6 of the Act, no prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred under AFSPA; thus giving complete impunity to armed forces.

Arunachal Pradesh

• As of April 1, 2021 up until September 30, 2021 districts of Tirap, Changlang and Longding as well as (i) Namsai and Mahadevpur police stations in Namsai district; (ii) Roing police station in Lower Dibang Valley district; (iii) Sunpura police station in Lohit district have been declared as disturbed areas as per section 3 of AFSPA

Manipur

• As of December 1, 2020 the entire state of Manipur, except Imphal municipal area has been declared as disturbed area for a period of one year i.e. until December 1, 2021

Assam

• On February 22, 2021 the entire state of Assam was declared as a disturbed area for 6 months citing the state Assembly elections and the activities of extremist outfits like ULFA(I).

Nagaland

On June 30, 2021 the application of AFSPA to the entire state was extended for another 6 months

MAHARASHTRA CONTROL OF ORGANISED CRIME ACT (1999),

• Organized crime is a grouping of highly centralized enterprises run by Criminals who tend to engage in illegal activity. Unlawful activities like terrorism, theft, prostitution, robbery, drug trafficking, human trafficking, forced labour which are practiced collectively by group of people are called as organized crimes.
• Section 2(e) defines ‘Organised Crime’ which means “any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency”.
• Under section 3 there exists presumption of offence if unlawful arms and other material including documents and papers were recovered from the possession of the accused that were used in the commission of the crime and also if finger prints were found at the crime scene.
• Presumption of offence means the court shall presume the accused to be guilty unless the contrary is proved, thus putting the onus of proving himself innocent upon the accused.
• The investigating authority has special powers like intercepting wire and oral communication in the process of investigation.
• Further, under section 18 confessions made by the accused before the Superintendent of Police or higher rank police official as accepted as evidence in trial.
• The offences under the Act includes conspiring, attempting to commit or abetting organized crime or harbouring member of organized crime or being a member of such syndicate.
• Under section 21(2) if investigation is not completed within 90 days, the period can be extended by application to the special court up to 180 days.
• Under sub-section 5 of section 21, bail is to be denied if the accused was on bail in an offence under this Act, or under any other Act, on the date of the offence in question. Bail can only be granted if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the crime and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
• MCOCA was passed to curb such activities of “gangs” that were part the “underworld” in Mumbai.
• In March 2003, the Bombay High Court had struck down as illegal the powers under MCOCA to intercept communications. However, these powers under section 13 to 16 were upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008.
• In 2002, the application of MCOCA was extended to Delhi as well.

KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANISED CRIME ACT, 2000 (KCOCA)

• The KCOCA was modelled on MCOCA and was legislated during the tenure of a Congress government in 2001.
• In 2009, KCOCA was proposed to be amended bringing terrorism within its purview with a maximum punishment of death. If the investigation is not completed within 180 days, the Court is authorized to extend the period up to 365 days, which means an accused can be detained for a year without filing of chargesheet.
• Under the proposed amendment Organized crime has been defined expansively to also include ‘terrorist act’ apart from ‘any continuing unlawful activity’. A terrorist act includes within its definition, acts committed with the intent to ‘disturb law and order’ or ‘public order’.
• The proposed amendment, empowered courts to attach the properties of terror suspects and there is a provision for a fine of Rs 10 lakh for terrorist acts. Also, terror suspects can be in police custody for a maximum of one month and in judicial custody for 180 days.
• However, the amended law has not received the President’s assent and thus these 2009 amendments do not stand. The following provisions, however, are part of the main Act as it is operational in present day.
• The investigating authority has special powers, under section 14, like intercepting wire and oral communication in the process of investigation.
• The police officer also can seek an order from the competing authority directing a cellular phone operator to de-activate any mobile phone and delink the calls from or to any mobile phone reasonably suspected of being used for any criminal act or conspiracy.
• Further, under section 19, confessions made by the accused before the Superintendent of Police or higher rank police official as accepted as evidence in trial.
• If a person is convicted under the Act, the court is empowered to declare that any movable or immovable property belonging to him be forfeited to the state government.
• Under sub-section 5 of section 22, bail is to be denied if the accused was on bail in an offence under this Act, or under any other Act, on the date of the offence in question. Bail can only be granted if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the crime and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
• Under section 23 there exists presumption of offence if unlawful arms and other material including documents and papers were recovered from the possession of the accused that were used in the commission of the crime and also if finger prints were found at the crime scene.

CHHATTISGARH SPECIAL PUBLIC SECURITY ACT (2005)

• Under the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act (CSPSA), 2005, or the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, “unlawful activities” include posing a danger to public order, peace or tranquility in society, posing an obstacle to maintenance of public order, interfering with administration of law and encouraging the disobedience of law among others.
• The Act borrows heavily from UAPA in its formation of Advisory Board, declaring organizations as unlawful, penalising membership of unlawful organization and so on.
• The government is also empowered to forfeit funds of such organization and District magistrate (DM) is empowered to take possession of places used for unlawful activities.
• The decision of the DM and/or state government in matters under the Act is final and cannot be appealed against, saving writ jurisdiction of the high courts and Supreme Court.

GUJARAT CONTROL OF TERRORISM & ORGANISED CRIME ACT, 2019 (GCTOCA)

• The law received the President’s Assent 16 years after it was first introduced in the state assembly. Three Presidents before Ram Nath Kovind had returned the bill to the state
• While the law borrows significantly from MCOCA, what it misses out on is the checks on interception of communication. Also, the definition of “terrorist act” also includes “an act committed with the intention to disturb law and order or public order or threaten the unity, integrity and security of the state”.
• Economic offences include ponzi schemes, extortion, land grabbing, contract killings, cybercrimes, human trafficking, and multi-level marketing schemes and organised betting.
• MCOCA has 5 sections dealing with interception of communication having checks like application for extension of period beyond 60 days must include a statement of the results of the interception thus far or officer above SP level is required to supervise the investigation.
• GCTOCA deals with the admissibility of evidence collected through interception, and does not mention the procedure for intercepting communication.
• under section 16, confessions made by the accused before the Superintendent of Police or higher rank police official as accepted as evidence in trial.
• Under Section 18, if a person is convicted under the Act, the court is empowered to declare that any movable or immovable property belonging to him be forfeited to the state government. Further, is any property is suspected to be proceeds of terrorist act or organized crime, the police can have it seized once confirmed by the Special Court.
• Under section 20(2) if investigation is not completed within 90 days, the period can be extended by application to the special court up to 180 days.
• Bail can only be granted if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the crime and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Bail is to be denied if the accused was on bail in an offence under this Act, or under any other Act, on the date of the offence in question.
• Under section 21 there exists presumption of offence if unlawful arms and other material including documents and papers were recovered from the possession of the accused that were used in the commission of the crime and also if finger prints were found at the crime scene

THE PREVENTION OF ANTI-SOCIAL ACTIVITIES, 1985 (PASA)

• The ‘definition’ of offenders who can be charged under this law are vague and easily prone to misuse. The definitions include “cruel person” “dangerous person”, “property grabber”, “unauthorised structure” among many others.
• A “cruel person” means a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, commits an offence punishable under section 8 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954.
• A “dangerous person” means a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI (offences affecting human body) or Chapter XVII (offences against property) of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959.
• Section 3 of the Act gives the government the power to issue a detention order against any person for preventing them from acting in “any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”.
• public order is deemed to be affected if any activities of the offenders is causing or is likely to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general publicor any section thereof, or if (there is) a grave or widespread danger to fife, property or public health.
• Under section 5, the law provides for place and conditions of detention which means a detainee can be kept under prolonged detention so as to maintenance, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline, as may be specified in the order.
• Section 6 states that if detention is made on multiple grounds, then the order will be deemed to have been made separately for each ground. This means that even if all but one ground is held by the court to be vague or invalid, the one ground would still remain and the detention order sustained.
• In case a person against whom a detention order has been made “is believed” to have absconded or is concealing himself, the concerned authority is empowered to attach or sell his property within the State.
• The detaining authority has up to 7 days to communicate the grounds of detention to a detainee, from the date of detention order and if any of these are facts that are against the “public interest”, then they may not be disclosed.
• The Advisory board hears the detainee without legal representation and decides a within 7 weeks whether the detention is confirmed. The Board is empowered to confirm detention for a maximum period of one year.
• The amendment Bill of 2020 brought cyber offences also under its ambit which meant any person committing offences described under the Information Technology Act can be detained under PASA.
• It also now includes sexual offenders which could mean anyone who commits sexual offences as defined under the Indian Penal Code.

Related:

J & K’s PSA Law: How Draconian is Draconian?

SC OBSERVES PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS TO HAVE A COLONIAL LEGACY WITH A HIGH POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE AND MISUSE

LAW ON ARREST AND DETENTION: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!

DEMOCRACY CAN NEVER BE A POLICE STATE: SUPREME COURT

The post Beyond UAPA: Examining other central and state laws granting vast powers to Govt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is being challenged in court as having “manifestly arbitrary” provisions and a very broad definition of “unlawful activity” that has a stifling impact on free expression. The Supreme Court, that first took up the matter September 26, 2022 will hear the matter on October 18.

Senior counsel Arvind Datar, representing the petitioner Foundation of Media Professionals, cited the Act’s arbitrary provisions before a three-judge bench comprised of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat, and J.B. Pardiwala. The Bench requested notification be conveyed to the counsels appearing in other related cases. “List these matters on October 18, 2022. The counsel appearing in the connected matters sent intimation accordingly,” the bench stated in the order.

The petition argues that the UAPA’s provisions are “arbitrary and perverse, since they represent a condemnation of all democratic expression,” and that governments are abusing them “to target any and all kinds of dissent.” The petition was filed through attorney Rahul Bhatia.

Earlier, on November 11, 2021, an appellate court panel led by the former Chief Justice N.V. Ramana had sent notices to the governments of Tripura and the Centre on a request for an immediate hearing of two UAPA-challenging petitions made by lawyer Prashant Bhushan. Since then, not much has changed. In those two petitions, it was claimed that the anti-terror statute had been abused to persecute lawyers and journalists for their social media posts about the communal unrest in Tripura in October 2021.

Further, the present petition also argues that because the UAPA offers the State “excessive and overwhelming powers… to act against groups and persons” who criticise “the governing party or majoritarian attitudes,” it “is a flagrant attack” on the fundamental rights to equality, freedom of speech, and life and liberty. It claims that because the authority that determines whether or not an organization is a terrorist also administers the sentence, takes into account an appeal, or selects the appellate panel, “the entire structure” of the statute “is dictatorial.”

“The definition of ‘unlawful activity’ includes ‘disaffection against India’ which does not have a defined meaning under the Act and can be used to target anyone against whom the government harbors a grudge to someone who may have a contrary point of view. It is submitted that ‘unlawful activity’ as a category exists only for the state to quell opposition, and in that sense is arbitrary and undemocratic,” the petitioner submitted through the petition.

The foundation urged the top court to declare the UAPA unconstitutional on the grounds that it was manifestly arbitrary and violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee the rights to equality, freedom of speech, and life and liberty. The foundation claimed that the UAPA was a severe violation of the liberties guaranteed by these articles insofar as it gave the state sweeping authority to take action against groups and individuals who opposed the ruling party or the majority.

In the petition, it was also submitted that, “The scheme of the Act is a gross assault on the freedoms protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, insofar as it grants excessive and overwhelming powers to the State to act against associations and individuals who express criticism against the ruling party or the majoritarian sentiments.”

The earlier petitions filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan had also raised substantive issues. They had also raised concerns about the ambiguity of the term “unlawful activity,” the “wide net” that the law casts over free speech, and the law’s propensity to include criticism of the government even though it did not pose a threat to the public order, security, sovereignty, or integrity of India. They claimed that the law’s total ban on anticipatory bail and the very impossible task of obtaining normal release under it had a “chilling impact” on the right to free speech.

Advocates Mukesh Gaur and Ansarul Haq Ansari had filed one of the petitions, while journalist Shyam Meera Singh had filed the other. For their posts on the violence in Tripura, all three have been charged under the UAPA and other criminal statutes. It’s unclear if the Supreme Court would also hear arguments from the National Investigation Agency appealing a Kerala High Court ruling that gold smuggling is not covered by the UAPA along with the petitions questioning the constitutionality of the UAPA. A few days before to the Kerala High Court’s decision on February 19, 2021, the Rajasthan High Court had ruled on February 1 that the UAPA classified the smuggling of gold as a terrorist activity. The highest court had last year sent a notice to the Centre on the subject, requiring it to resolve the dispute.

Major issues associated with the UAPA:

Over the past few years, Indian civil society has been badly hit by use of laws such as Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), sedition, FCRA, NSA, AFSPA* and various other similar laws. UAPA is possibly the most extreme due to its stigmatising effect and the Himalayan problem of getting bail, used wantonly in a large number of cases such as the Bhima Koregaon case, Akhil Gogoi case, the recent Andhra Telangana arrests, the Hathras rape case, Delhi CAA-NRC cases,

Reliance workers cases, Jharkhand Adivasi cases and a multitude of others.

Stringent Bail Provisions:

Some former IAS, IPS and IFS officers had also challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the UAPA by filing a petition in the Supreme Court. The petitioners include luminaries like ex-IAS officers Wajahat Habibullah, Amitabha Pande, Harsh Mander, Kamal Kant Jaswal, Hindal Tyabji, MG Devasahayam, Pradeep Kumar Deb, Baldev Mahajan, former IPS Julio Ribeiro and Dr Ish Kumar as also ex-IFS officer Ashok Kumar Sharma. This too is still pending adjudication.

This earlier petition filed by former IAS/IPS officers emphasises that the golden thread that runs through our common law criminal jurisprudence, i.e., a person is innocent until proven guilty, has been completely upended and given the go-by. It is submitted that the great power that is given by certain provisions of the UAPA, needs to be exercised with great responsibility and restraint, in order to ensure that the constitutional rights of individuals are given due consideration and importance, and are not trampled on by arbitrary action.

The petition also challenges the constitutionality of the Proviso to Section 43D (5 of the Act), inserted by the 2008 amendment, which mandates that a person shall not be released on bail if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against a person is “prima facie” true. It is submitted that the said Proviso is arbitrary and not based on any reasons emanating from the Act, and also violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution since the Act is not a law enacted for preventive detention. The “prima facie” correctness of untested and unproven allegations, cannot be the sole reason to deny a person the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21.

“The abysmally low rates of successful prosecutions are also a pointer to fact that said proviso is arbitrarily used more to quell dissent than to achieve the actual objectives of the Act.”

The petitioners state that the stringent bail provisions contained in the UAPA have created a situation where merely being accused of a crime under the UAPA is considered sufficient to keep a person incarcerated, until the lengthy trial process is over.

A law, which permits the continued incarceration of a human being on the basis of mere “prima facie” opinion and does not permit bail, is a truly unjust law, and if the same is to remain on the statute book, the person whose prolonged and indefinite incarceration is sought must be given every opportunity to challenge such incarceration

The lack of bail for a person when accused of terrorism charges, coupled with the lack of supply of materials upon which sanction is sought – when combined together result in unfettered and unbridled powers upon the Government, and gives the Government to use its powers under the UAPA in an arbitrary manner, the petition states.

The petition points out that the mere accusation of having been involved in terrorism, is sufficient to bring Section 43D(5) into play, and leads to a denial of the individual’s right to bail.

The petition also relies upon the reply given by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in the Lok Sabha in March 2020 to conclude that the average conviction rate over the five year period (2015-2019) is 2.19%. This statistic alone suggests that prosecution under the UAPA is either initiated in “bad faith”, or the quality of the evidence is not sufficient, says the petition.

The petition can be read here.

The prolonged bail period and repeated rejections faced by the accused under UAPA is a grave concern. Fr Stan Swamy (84) was a Jharkhand-based tribal rights defender was arrested on October 8, 2020, by the anti-terror National Investigation Agency in connection with the Bhima Koregaon Maoist conspiracy case and died at a Mumbai hospital while in judicial custody in July 5 2021, the day year while awaiting bail. The death of Fr Stan is nothing short of an institutional murder by the NIA and the Taloja Jail authorities.

Curbing dissent:

The unlawful activities prevention act not only criminalises the fundamental rights to association, free speech, and equality but also blurs the line between political dissent and criminal activity by making certain ideologies, books, and beliefs unlawful. This creates a political culture in which certain organizations and groups associated with the ruling classes are forbidden. As the largest democracy in the world, the freedom to dissent has become an essential component of every basic right that every Indian person, whether they live in India or overseas, is given. It is undeniably true that UAPA fosters executive overreach and offers many examples to support this claim.

Because of how vaguely the UAPA laws are written, they ban an excessively wide spectrum of expressive activities. When targeted remarks do not advocate, incite, or promote violence, these prohibitions may be arbitrarily applied to a wide range of situations. Furthermore, the UAPA act’s limits on freedom of speech and expression threaten unacceptable broad swaths of protected speech rather than being carefully targeted to the objectives of security, sovereignty, or integrity. These legislative frameworks for combating terrorism strengthen the state’s coercive capabilities. The justification for enhanced powers has two components. On the one hand, taken from the logic of masculinist protection, where a powerful state is wanted for the protection of citizens, and based on the reasoning of compelling necessity not protected by law. An analysis of individual UAPA cases in India demonstrates how the principles of the formation of subservient citizens, as well as the expanded legal authority of coercion, are used to operate the masculinist security state. Activists are accused of violating several provisions of the arbitrary UAPA, including Meeran Haider, Safoora Zargar, and Umar Khalid. The state is attempting to curse the democratic rights movements that have arisen from resistance to the communally charged CAA. Journalists who have sought to document the struggles the Kashmiri people have endured, notably during the Covid-19, like as Masrat Zahra, Mushtaq Ganaie, and Gowhar Geelani, have drawn the ire of the state and been arrested under the UAPA legislation. The fact that even carrying out journalistic obligations is considered a terrorist act is a sobering indictment of our day.

For example, the UAPA has been used to imprison individuals who are unlikely to be involved in heinous plots against the state, such as professors, lawyers, and social activists. The chargesheets that serve as the initial proof of such heinous and nefarious conspiracies mostly rely on damning papers that industrious cops dug up from a single laptop. These documents are rife with peculiar and improbable elements.

Phrasing of the Act:

There seems to be quite a lot of dissatisfaction in the higher judiciary about the burden placed on their shoulders by the rising number of UAPA cases. The phrasing of the act is so wide and sweeping, that it gives a government powers to practically put under arrest and detain anyone it finds inconvenient or an obstacle to its political aims. And the mere production of a chargesheet before the court seems to provide prima facie basis for denial of bail. Even the necessity of filing chargesheet within ninety days is waived on the ground that the crime is grave beyond imagination, and far too complex for preliminary investigation to be completed in ninety days. Further, not to speak of a real crime against the State, even a supposed intention is enough to commit the accused in the clutches of police or security agencies.           

This allows malicious prosecution, sometimes years even to produce a chargesheet. And then at last, the court has to examine a complicated and confusing morass of details spun out to a never-ending chain of guesses and hunches resting on faint footprints on shifting sands. A clear decision on the status of the evidence becomes impossible. And no wonder, rather than declaring the state biased in a matter of serious threat to national security, the court sometimes is tempted to defer the onerous task of arriving at a definite conclusion by dismissing the argument for defence as inconclusive. And hapless detainees have to spend years waiting for the long-winded trial to come to an end. And that too not because the crime itself is planned with hideous subtlety and meticulous design, but because in fact there is too little solid material to grasp firmly.         

Of late such cases have proliferated to such an extent that many members of the higher judiciary must have been worried. On the one hand, there is the citizen’s priceless birthright of freedom, and on the other, the perceived grave threat to the state. Add to it the growing chorus of serious journalists, responsible lawyers, reputed retired bureaucrats and senior police officers, eminent jurists and academics who protest bitterly against rampant abuse of law under the garb of protecting the state.    

The country has been split into two factions as a result of this rule. One side supports this extremism and believes that India’s terrorist operations could not be stopped without such strict legal restrictions. The opposing faction claims that this law prevents India’s social fabric from being ruled by democracy. Additionally, because of this law’s ambiguity, it is simpler to take advantage of the weaker groups and marginalized members of Indian society or any group the government views as a danger. Against the instances mentioned under UAPA, a propensity to gloss over the important subtleties has been seen. Due to improper investigation and procedural mistakes, the accused are detained in prison for several years while their case keep on pending. It’s possible to argue that this Act serves as a political tool to restrict civil freedoms while disguising it as a legal process since everyone and everyone may now be classified as a “terrorist.”

Challenge in the Bombay High Court

Earlier this year, the Bombay High Court issued notice to the NIA on a plea filed by Bhima Koregaon case accused Anand Teltumbde challenging the strict bail provision in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Assailing Section 43D of this law, the academician argued that it created a huge hurdle for any person to be granted bail. Lamenting that the wording of the Act precludes the court from even superficially examining the case of an accused, he urged the HC to overturn the Special NIA court’s bail rejection order.

Moreover, he expressed the apprehension that he might remain incarcerated for many years as the central agency intends to examine over 200 witnesses. As an alternative to bail, Teltumbde sought that he should be placed under house arrest as part of his judicial custody instead of prison. In his plea, he also accused the NIA of misusing the scope of the term “front organisation” citing that its definition is too broad. The HC bench comprising SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar has directed the central agency to file a reply within three weeks.

Charges against Anand Teltumbde

Violence had erupted at Koregaon-Bhima village in Pune district on January 1, 2018, where supporters had gathered to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon. This resulted in the death of one person and leaving several injured. Subsequently, the Pune police arrested activists such as Sudha Bharadwaj, Shoma Sen, Arun Ferreira, and Vernon Gonsalves, Surendra Gadling, Sudhir Dhawale and P Varavara Rao for allegedly inciting the Bhima Koregoan violence through their speech at the Elgar Parishad meeting on December 31, 2017. 

Teltumbde, a professor at the Goa Institute of Management has been accused of organising the Elgar Parishad event and for having links with banned organisations. In January 2020, the case was transferred to the NIA. 

Related:

No coercive steps to be taken against journalist, lawyers charged by Tripura Police: Supreme Court 

What does it take to secure bail under UAPA?

Mere association or support to terror organisation, not sufficient to attract UAPA: SC

Do citizens today have the right to peacefully oppose their government?

The post Draconian UAPA provisions, constitutionality challenged in the SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dalit protest in Gujarat; Photo credit: NDTV

The Gujarat government is set to table the Gujarat Protection of Internal Security Act (GPISA) in the upcoming budget session of the State Assembly. A bill, various versions of which have been sent back to the state assembly, is being pushed once again by the BJP-led government in Gujarat. Inspired by the MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999) the Gujarat assembly in 2003 attempted to draft the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Bill (GCTCB) ostensibly to fight internal security. It has been sent to three sitting Presidents and returned each time on grounds of conflict with existing central acts on evidence, communication and national security. Now, it is set to appear with a new name and thrust as a question of national interest.

The bill was first drafted by Modi-led state government of Gujarat in 2003. It was sent back in 2004 by the then President APJ Abdul Kalam who demanded that the clause pertaining to telephonic interception of communication be removed as it violated citizens' right to privacy. The Gujarat government tweaked this clause and sent it to the next President Pratibha Patil. Once again, in 2008, President Patil also refused to ratify this bill citing conflict with the Indian Evidence Act, which does not recognize confessions before the police as valid in court. Accepting this clause would have meant opening up the scope for torture under police custody.

These clauses pertaining to internal security were seen as falling outside the purview of the state government and thus, under the Union government as per Article 245 and 246 as well as the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution.

In September 2015, the state legislature of Gujarat once again tried to send a slightly amended version of (GCTCB) and it was hoped that with the change in central government this would be ratified. But once it became clear that President Pranab Mukherjee would not ratify a law that allowed the police to arrest merely on the basis of suspicion, the home ministry withdrew the bill. The proposed law allows the Gujarat police to remain immune from prosecution on grounds of wrongful arrest, as it insists on the “protection of action taken in good faith”.

A state government with a history of violence targeted against the minority community, oppressed castes and marginalised people, where police officers have been charged with fake ‘encounters’ and then subsequently earned promotions and legal immunity, and where voices of dissent have been repeatedly crushed, is now attempting to ratify a law that can effectively suspend the rights of the citizens in the name of internal security.

The ministry of information and broadcasting also challenged the bill, citing the utilisation of law to intercept private communication, a provision that could be used to fabricate cases against political opponents. In January 2016, the bill was returned to the state assembly. Despite these repeated reversals, it appears that the BJP-dominated state assembly of Gujarat is determined to pass GPISA, which defines internal security as threats posed by “proxies of a hostile foreign power” within the state. Here, it becomes crucial to understand why such a law is deemed essential for ‘internal security’.

Cursory assessments of the clauses of GPISA are reminiscent of the debates that surrounded the MCOCA, an act passed in Maharashtra to address organised crime. Inspired by MCOCA, the GPISA goes a few steps further to empower the state police force by including “challenges posed by terrorism, insurgency, communalism and even caste based violence”.

This renders any and all criticism of the existing political dispensation, especially the growing rage of the minority communities and Dalits against an increasingly intolerant regime, criminal. The GPISA allows the Gujarat Police to nab any person(s) on the basis of suspicion of being a ‘threat to internal security’. This means that no prosecution is required against the person under suspicion as it empowers the police to define the basis of suspicion.

Under this Act, offences are punishable and would be cognisable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and can be tried by a Sessions court. Both public and private institutions fall under the purview of the GPISA and such institutions can be put under electronic surveillance. Evidence collected through the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications shall be admissible as evidence against the accused in court.

A contentious section of the bill states that confessions before police officers are admissible in court against the accused. The period of custody and for filing chargesheet in a case is extended from 90 days to 180 days. Punitive action extends from fines to imprisonment or both along with confiscation of property. This builds a veritable ground for police corruption wherein officials can extort opponents with a threat of being charged under this Act. Political opponents can be put under electronic surveillance; the police can set up security zones with special powers.

Furthermore, the government can take action against caste groups and communities for promoting ‘sectarian interests’. And remarkably, as per this bill, no legal action can be taken against the police and security agencies for wrongful arrest, as all action is deemed to be done in “good faith”, even if the arrested citizen is honourably acquitted after trial.

A state government with a history of violence targeted against the minority community, oppressed castes and marginalised people, where police officers have been charged with fake ‘encounters’ and then subsequently earned promotions and legal immunity, and where voices of dissent have been repeatedly crushed, is now attempting to ratify a law that can effectively suspend the rights of the citizens in the name of internal security.

Human rights organisations and activists have described the proposed law as ‘draconian’ and ‘unconstitutional’ as it takes away the right to express one’s views, builds an atmosphere of fear, and is bound to be misused, especially considering the partisan views of the existing government. Central ‘anti-terrorism’ laws or acts like Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA 1967 (especially after the substantive amendments made in 2012) and Prevention of Terrorism Act or POTA 2002 are already in place, and along with MCOCA, its efficacy has repeatedly come under question with regards to containing law and order, combating organised crime and fighting terror.

Instead of equipping the existing security forces with means of combating crime and terror, laws are being drafted that effectively curb human rights and civil liberties. Unsurprisingly, following the efforts of the Gujarat state assembly, other states like Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka have been pushing for such laws. Laws such as these, that propose to provide the police with unregulated powers of surveillance, arrest and even torture while letting them get away with it in the name of ‘good faith’, are inconsistent with the Constitution of India, and in some instances, they directly violate it – as in the case, with the GPISA, of the Property Act, Indian Evidences Act, CrPC and IPC. Such laws are bound to be used against the socially and economically weakest sections of society, and threaten to put in place a new method of state-sponsored extortion against every political adversary.

(Vidhya is part of the Editorial Collective at the Indian Cultural Forum).

This article was first published on India Cultural Forum.
 

The post Terror of Law: The Gujarat Protection of Internal Security Act (GPISA) appeared first on SabrangIndia.