The city police have termed the rioting in D.J. Halli on the night of August 11 as an “act of terror” and invoked Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. However, the decision has come under criticism from several activists and legal experts, who have argued this was a “misuse” of the provision.
A senior police official defended it, saying that Section 15 of the Act defines a terror act as “whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India or with an intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people.”
What the Act says
The Act further elucidates the means of this act as “by using bombs, dynamite, explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons” to cause death, injuries, destruction or damage of property. These provisions further include “damage of any property intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the government of India, any State government or its agencies” or “overawes by the means of criminal force or attempts to do so and causing death of or intends to cause death of a public functionary.”
A senior official leading the probe said that the incidents at D.J. Halli clearly included many of these acts.
However, lawyers and activists have questioned this.
“UAPA is intended to handle situations where the Indian State has been targeted. In the case of D.J. Halli violence, any violator has to be dealt with strictly, but the riots had no element of being anti-State. Yes, there was largescale arson and the police station came under attack. But it was triggered by a social media post and a perception that the police did not act against the person who made the derogatory post. The accused had been to the police station and lodged a complaint as well, which speaks for their commitment to the system,” argued noted human rights lawyer and former special public prosecutor of the State B.T. Venkatesh.
Another lawyer and activist Vinay Sreenivasa alleged that of late, there had been “indiscriminate use” of UAPA, which is a draconian law. “The law is being used to intimidate a community, be it a minority community as in this case, or human rights activists and other dissenters elsewhere,” he said, adding the recent amendments had only further made the Act more “draconian.”
