New Delhi: In a significant verdict Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that mere membership of a banned outfit was an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA.
The apex court overruled Friday three 2011 judgments which had said that being a member of a banned outfit was not an offence under UAPA, unless it was accompanied by overt violence.
A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol held the 2011 judgments were passed on bail applications which did not call into question the constitutionality of the provisions. It also said the constitutional validity of the UAPA and TADA were upheld in earlier judgments.
The bench also questioned the 2011 judgments for reading down the provisions without hearing the Centre. It observed Friday: “When a Parliamentary legislation is read down in the absence of the Union, enormous harm would be caused to State if they are not heard.”
What were the 2011 judgments?
There were three similar judgments that year. The one in the “Arup Bhuyan versus State of Assam” was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, while deciding a bail application under TADA filed by a person accused of being a member of the terror outfit ULFA.
The bench held: “Mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence.”
Earlier in 2011, in the “State of Kerala versus Raneef” case, the same bench took a similar view while deciding a bail application under UAPA. It took the same stance in the “Indra Das versus State of Assam” case that year.
Also read: 14 parties move Supreme Court alleging ‘arbitrary’ use of CBI, ED against Opposition leaders