Law clarified relating to criminal liability imposed therefor under special statutes (UAPA and TADA) on basis of doctrine of “guilt by (continuing) association”, whether should be read down to include the conditions of actus reus and mens rea. Nature, scope and applicability of S. 10(a)(i) r/w Ss. 3 and 4 UAPA, explained in detail.
[Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, (2023) 8 SCC 745]
Case comment
In Arup Bhuyan (2011), a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra was deciding an appeal against the judgement of a Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [“TADA”], which had convicted the appellant under Section 3(5), TADA (TADA subsequently lapsed in 1995). The court read down the provision to mean that mere membership of an unlawful association was not enough to be incriminating relying on US case law.
The American decisions primarily involve indictment on the basis of membership of political organizations or incidents of free speech advocating overthrow of the government. However, under Indian law, it is 60 299 US 353 (1936) not membership of political organizations etc. or free speech or criticism of the government that is sought to be banned, it is only those organizations which aim to compromise the sovereignty and integrity of India and have been notified to be such and unlawful, whose membership is prohibited. This is in furtherance of the objective of the UAPA, which has been enacted to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and dealing with terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. The distinction, therefore, is clear.
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/