Srinagar: India is reportedly using the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to systematically suppress dissenting voices, particularly in the region of Jammu and Kashmir, according to a report from The Wire. The report highlights the case of Irfan Meraj, a Kashmiri journalist accused under UAPA, as a critical example of this alleged misuse.
The report, compiled by social justice advocate Saranga Ugalmugle, emphasizes how Meraj’s arrest on March 20, 2023, for documenting human rights abuses, signifies a broader pattern of using anti-terror laws to silence those challenging the current administration. Despite a lack of concrete evidence, Meraj remains imprisoned without trial, accused of supporting pro-freedom activities.
The Wire’s report highlights significant flaws in Meraj’s prosecution and broader concerns about the UAPA itself, emphasizing that the law facilitates extensive restrictions on dissent. Through its provisions, the UAPA allegedly transforms accusations into a near-permanent state of guilt, bypassing fundamental legal protections.
Meraj’s case raises concerns about the violation of constitutional rights, as authorities reportedly failed to provide written grounds for his arrest. The Indian Supreme Court mandates that all arrested individuals must receive written reasons for their detention, a protection enshrined in the constitution.
The report suggests that Meraj’s situation exemplifies the systemic weaponization of the legal process, accusing him of participating in a vague “larger conspiracy” promoting a secessionist agenda. The prosecution’s reliance on ambiguous UAPA phrasing allegedly creates an atmosphere where political activism and journalism can be framed as criminal activities.
Additionally, the use of secret “protected witnesses” in Meraj’s case raises further concerns about the transparency and fairness of the legal process. His prolonged detention without a chargesheet or decision on his bail application, combined with an extensive list of witnesses, reportedly violates his right to a speedy trial.
Meraj’s case, according to the report, illustrates a broader strategy where the UAPA is used to label individuals as terrorists, extending beyond those engaged in violent acts to include journalists and activists. The state, it is argued, does not require proof of illegal activities, only the power to label an individual as a threat, thereby silencing dissent and deterring similar investigative efforts.
By focusing on cases like Meraj’s, the state allegedly aims to silence those documenting human rights abuses and shift attention away from its actions, warning others against similar pursuits.