Why The Uapa And Other Draconian Laws Should Be Opposed?

Abstract

Bail considerations are not only contained to those offences which come under the Indian Penal Code but also under the special statutes. In these special statutes the offences are cognizable offences and in respect of those offences the officer-in-charge of the police station can arrest any accused, and if the offence is non-bailable then the question of the custody of the accused in police custody or in jail or the production before the magistrate as provided under the Cr.P.C generally arises. The question often arises as to whether the bail provision as contained in Chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C would be attracted to such offences. As to whether the provisions of bail as contained in this Chapter are wholly attracted or attracted with certain limitations as specially provided in the
statute have to be decided on considering the provisions of the various statutes like Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), FERA Act, Defense and Internal Security of India Act 1971, 18 Official Secrets Act 1923, 19 The Extradition Act 1962, Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Explosive Substance Act 1908. Similarly, the economic offences bring about a total imbalance in the economy of the country which has the effect of making the lives of the majority of people economically weaker and miserable; such economic offences are even treated worse than murders being committed in the country. UAPA is India’s foremost anti-terrorism legislation, which has been amended thrice in 2004, 2008 and 2012; the law has become increasingly repressive, regressive and draconian. UAPA violates the norms of natural justice as it puts the onus of proof on the accused and not on the prosecution. The draconian act was also being used to detain poor tribals in West Bengal and Chhattisgarh, who were trying to stop the seizure of their precious farm land by mining companies.