UAPA is Unlawful Activity Prevention Act that was enacted in 1963, this act applies to the entire country. The provisions of this act apply also to citizens of India and abroad.
unlawful activity” refers to any action taken by individual or association (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written or by signs to questions, disclaims, disrupts, or is intended to disrupt the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.
The amendment made to the 4th schedule of the act allows the NIA to declare a person to be a terrorist if he/she is found having any kind of terror links. Currently, only organizations are designated as 'terrorist organizations' but after the change in the UAPA, 1967 an individual can also be termed a terror suspect.
The law of sedition mentioned in section 124 of ipc talk about kind of speech that is against the government which in power and invoke or incites people to harm the government or the people due to their speech.
Recently in relation to this sedition law the apex court stayed coercive action against two Telugu channels, TV5 and ABN Andhrajyothy, in FIRs registered by the Andhra Pradesh police in a sedition case. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao, and S Ravindra Bhat expressed a prima facie view that the FIRs are an attempt to "muzzle media freedom”. “It is time we define the limits of sedition. There is a need to define the scope of offences under Section 124A (sedition) under the Indian Penal Code, especially in the context of media freedom,” the bench observed. "...we are of the view that the ambit and parameters of the provisions of Sections 124A, 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code would require interpretation, particularly in the context of the right of the electronic and print media to communicate news, information and the rights, even those that may be critical of the prevailing regime in any part of the nation," the bench further observed in the order.
The debate on the issue that section 124A of the IPC is a threat to freedom of speech granted to the citizens by the constitution is an everlasting debate where many learned persons have different views.
But in my opinion the law of sedition is nowhere a threat to freedom of speech. The freedom of speech and expression given to a citizen are also with some restrictions or condition that is not to harm the peace and decorum of the entire nation. People in name of freedom of speech going all around specking against the country and the current government which leads to a feeling of enmity, disloyalty or hatred in the people's heart due to which the peace of the nation is broken down will obviously lead to an activity which has to be termed as sedition. Because citizens in no way can be allowed to invoke other people against the government and create a anti-national feeling in them.
Now turn the coin to the other side, mere criticize to the governmental schemes and system should never be said to be seditions. Explanations to section 124A clearly define limits to the law of sedition. It says, “Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the government to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offense under this section. Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other actions of the government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offense under this section.” Because people still have the basic rights to come up with their views and also criticism will lead to a good working government. People here are just exercising their right to speech given to them in the Indian constitution. The only condition attached to it is the expression speech of the words they use should not lead to sedition.
The Supreme court judgment in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962) further restricts the scope of sedition law. In the case, the court had read down Section 124A of the IPC and held that the application of the provision should be limited to "acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder or disturbance of law and order; or incitement to violence". Thus, the Kedar Nath Singh verdict makes the ‘tendency test’ imperative for imposing sedition cases on anyone, leave alone the media.
As per the Supreme Court verdict in Romesh Thapar vs the State of Madras, 1950, “nothing less than endangering the foundations of the state or threatening its overthrow could justify curtailment of the rights to freedom of speech and expression.” Thus, if exercise of free speech invokes a proximate and imminent tendency to violently overthrow a government established by law, an action can be initiated under section 124A of IPC. But in the absence of such a clarity, the law is prone to unconstitutional use. Such a brazen violation of the Constitution warrants the invalidation of sedition law as the Constitution of India has many provisions to preserve its security, unity, integrity, and sovereignty.
UAPA is a anti-terror legislation. In my views UAPA has been a little vague in defining terrorist activity. And under the act a person can be under detention without even a charge for up to 180 days. Such long periods of pre-trial detention circumvent safeguards in the criminal justice system such as evidentiary requirements and burden of proof, and permit the state to punish those suspected of committing crimes without proving these allegations. Also, under the act the time for police custody can also be increased to 30 days which might also lead to a lot of custodial violence.
Though many studies says that the there is a low conviction rate in both their offences. But still the procedure followed for the trial and pretrial are punishment itself to a person and also these cases are highlighted in the media very often and the person's identity is also revealed even if the person is not found guilty still, they face a lot difficulties and disrespected due to the revelation of their name and identity. And such a long procedure which takes around 180days even without proving allegation is worse than one being punished in any other offence.