Bombay HC dismisses plea challenging constitutional validity of UAPA
Bombay High Court
on Thursday dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (
UAPA
).
A bench of Justices A S Gadkari and Neela Gokhale said the Act in its present form was "constitutionally valid" and, hence, challenge to its vires fails.
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Select a Course Category
MBA
healthcare
Data Analytics
Public Policy
Technology
Operations Management
CXO
others
MCA
Finance
Cybersecurity
Artificial Intelligence
Digital Marketing
Design Thinking
Management
Others
Data Science
Product Management
Project Management
Degree
Healthcare
Leadership
PGDM
Data Science
Skills you'll gain:
Financial Management
Team Leadership & Collaboration
Financial Reporting & Analysis
Advocacy Strategies for Leadership
Duration:
18 Months
UMass Global
Master of Business Administration (MBA)
Starts on
May 13, 2024
Get Details
Skills you'll gain:
Analytical Skills
Financial Literacy
Leadership and Management Skills
Strategic Thinking
Duration:
24 Months
Vellore Institute of Technology
VIT Online MBA
Starts on
Aug 14, 2024
Get Details
The court dismissed a 2021 petition filed by one Anil Baburao Baile, who was issued notice in 2020 in connection with the
Elgaar Parishad case
by the National Investigation Agency.
Baile sought a declaration that the UAPA and also the now suspended Section 124A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertaining to sedition be declared as ultra vires and unconstitutional.
In his plea, Baile also sought the setting aside of the July 10, 2020 notice issued to him.
Live Events
As per the petition, the provisions of UAPA granted "unbridled power' to the executive to declare an organisation or an individual and their activity unlawful without defining the same in the law.
The amendment made in the UAPA to adopt the United Nations Security Council's 2001 resolution, which was for criminalising any person supporting international terrorism, made it possible for the government to declare an Indian citizen or an organisation as a terrorist, the plea added.
"Nowhere does the Constitution authorise a blanket power to the executive in deciding and Parliament cannot be granted blanket power to declare an organisation as unlawful," Baile's plea claimed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court dismisses petition against Maharashtra's agri procurement scheme, calls them ‘baseless'
The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions challenging a Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) dated March 12, 2024, on the procurement and supply of agricultural inputs to farmers, calling them 'totally baseless' and imposing a cost of ₹1 lakh on the petitioners. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne rejected a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Agri Sprayers T.I.M. Association and others contested the tender-based procurement model adopted under the new GR. The Bench ruled that there was no flaw in the GR, which outlines the government's plan to supply five items — battery-operated sprayers, nano urea, nano DAP, metaldehyde pesticide, and cotton storage bags — to farmers under a special scheme for boosting productivity and developing the value chain of cotton, soybean, and oilseeds. The order passed on July 22 and made available on July 25, observed that filing of these baseless petitions has resulted in creation of hurdles in effective implementation of the Special Action Plan, which is aimed at giving impetus to cultivation of specified crops and benefitting the farmers. 'A trader and manufacturer of one of the products has attempted to frustrate the Special Action Plan with the motive of promoting his own business interests. For this reason, also, while dismissing the Petitions, we are inclined to impose costs on the Petitioners.' The petition filed by Agri Sprayers T.I.M. Association and others, challenged the GR dated March 12, 2024, which contemplates procurement and supply of five items: fertilisers, pesticides and agriculture equipment to the farmers under special program for enhancement of productivity. The petitioners argued that the new procurement model marked a shift from the 2016 GR, which had facilitated farm subsidies via the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, enabling farmers to purchase such items from local vendors. They alleged that the state agencies were now procuring these products at inflated prices, thus harming both manufacturers and farmers. The petition said that the GR has the effect of deleting the items such as: Battery Operated Sprayers, Nano Urea, Nano DAP, Metaldihide Pesticide and cotton storage bags from Schedule-A of the GR dated December 5, 2016, by which amounts towards purchase of the said items were to be directly paid to the farmers under Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT). The petitioners said they are aggrieved by the action of the State government in directing procurement of the items for supply thereof to the farmers through Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (MAIDCL) and Maharashtra State Powerloom Corporation Limited (MSPCL) and insisted that the subsidy for procurement of the said five items must be paid in cash to the farmers so as to enable them to purchase the same from local traders rather than procuring and supplying them through agencies like MAIDCL, MSPC, etc. The Bench ordered, 'We do not find any merit in Writ Petition as well as PIL petition and both are accordingly dismissed by imposing costs of ₹1,00,000 on Petitioners to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority within 4 weeks. If costs are not paid within the stipulated time, the Registry shall make a report to the jurisdictional District Collector for recovery of the amount of costs from Mr. Tushar Padgilwar as arrears of land revenue. In view of the dismissal of the Writ petition as well as the PIL petition, the Interim Applications do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.' The petitioners argued that the new procurement model marked a shift from the 2016 GR, which had facilitated farm subsidies via the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, enabling farmers to purchase such items from local vendors. They alleged that the state agencies were now procuring these products at inflated prices, thus harming both manufacturers and farmers. Advocate Nikhil Sakhardande, appearing for the petitioners, argued the DBT model offered farmers better value, letting them buy locally at competitive rates. Senior advocate V.R. Dhond, representing the State, clarified that the current GR was part of a broader initiative and not merely about product distribution. The court agreed and held that the two GRs were distinct in objective and scope. It observed that the 2016 GR focused on DBT subsidies for broader agricultural items, whereas the 2024 GR aimed at structured, state-led procurement for a targeted action plan to improve oilseed productivity. The Bench ruled that the petitioners had 'no locus standi' to challenge the GR as their interests were purely commercial and did not reflect any public concern. It held that the petitioners had 'erroneously mixed up' the objectives of two separate GRs and thereby failed to establish any legal infirmity in the March 2024 resolution.
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Look at your own country: Bombay High Court raps CPI(M) over Gaza protest petition
The Bombay High Court on Friday (July 25, 2025) dismissed a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the CPI challenging the Mumbai Police's decision to deny permission for a protest at Azad Maidan against the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The court observed that the Indian political organisations should prioritise domestic issues over international conflicts. A Division Bench comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad pulled up the petitioners for focusing on matters outside the country and said, 'Our country has enough issues to deal with. We do not want anything like this. I am sorry to say that you are short-sighted. You are looking at Gaza and Palestine while neglecting what's happening here. Why don't you do something for your own country? Look at your own country. Be patriots. People say they are patriots, but this is not patriotism. Show patriotism for the citizens of our own country first,' the Bench remarked sharply during the hearing. Senior advocate Mihir Desai representing CPI(M), informed the Bench that on June 13, 2025, his clients submitted an application seeking permission from the Azad Maidan police station to hold a peaceful protest and gathering in Azad Maidan to show solidarity with the people of Gaza, who are currently in the midst of a genocide, by calling for a ceasefire. On June 17, denying permission to the All India Peace and Solidarity Foundation (AIPSF) that police informed them that the permission to protest was being denied in exercise of their powers under Section 168 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 68 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Mr. Desai informed the Bench that the political parties have time and again taken up several causes that has concerned India and have been conducting health and education camps. The Court noted that the CPI(M), being a registered as Indian political party, should ideally be engaging with local civic concerns. 'You are a registered party in India. Your party could have taken up issues like garbage dumping, pollution, drainage, or flooding. Why are you not protesting on these issues? We are only giving examples. Instead, you want to protest over something happening thousands of miles away and showing concern for Palestine and Gaza,' the Bench observed. The petitioners stated that the Indian government's stance and support of Palestine as a State, has been an integral part of the nation's foreign policy. In 1974, India became the first Non-Arab State to recognize Palestine Liberation Organisation as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In 1988, India was also one of the first countries to recognize Palestine as a State. In April 2024, India voted in favour of the Human Rights Council Resolution on the Right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Moreover, India is a State signatory to the Genocide Convention, 1948, and the protest which was held to condemn violence and genocide in Gaza, can in no way termed to be the foreign policy of the India State. Mr. Desai further argued that citizens have a fundamental right to protest at designated places and that disagreements with the government's foreign policy cannot be grounds to stifle dissent. He also contended that mere apprehensions of law-and-order issues, without concrete evidence, should not override constitutional freedoms. He also clarified that the protest has nothing to do with Operation Sindoor or India's border relations with neighbouring countries. CPI(M) issues statement Rejecting the petition, the court observed, 'You don't know the dust it could kick up. Whether to take a side for Palestine or Israel is their (Govt of India) work, why do you want to create such a situation that the country has to take sides on this? Why do you want to do this? It's obvious, going by the party you represent, that you don't understand what this could do to the foreign affairs of the country.' The CPI(M) has strongly condemned the Bombay High Court's remarks while dismissing its petition challenging the denial of permission to protest against the Gaza conflict. Calling the Court's comments unconstitutional and politically biased, the CPI(M) criticised the bench for questioning its patriotism and aligning with the Central government's foreign policy stance. 'It is regrettable to say that the Bench appears to be completely unaware of the constitutional provisions that empower political parties or the history of our country and the support and brotherly feelings of the Indian people towards the Palestinian people for their right to a homeland. The statement made by the High Court bench regarding the CPI(M) smacks of the bench aligning itself with the position of the Central Government,' the party said in a statement. The party invoked India's historical support for Palestine and urged citizens to reject what it termed a troubling judicial trend undermining democratic rights. 'We appeal to the freedom and democracy-loving people of the country to stand shoulder to shoulder with us in unequivocally rejecting this objectionable view,' the statement read.
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Senegal national on tourist visa caught with cocaine in Gurgaon
Gurgaon: A Senegal national in possession of 15g cocaine and MDMA each was arrested from DLF-3. Fadiga, a resident of Dakar, had entered India in May 2024 on a tourist visa, a police official said. "The illegal substances in his possession were procured from another foreign national in Delhi and were to be sold in Gurgaon," the official added. Rs 3,120 in cash were also recovered from the accused during the search operation, which was conducted on July 24. You Can Also Check: Gurgaon AQI | Weather in Gurgaon | Bank Holidays in Gurgaon | Public Holidays in Gurgaon "A tip-off was received that an African national would be coming to DLF-3's U block to deliver a package of narcotics. We identified him and recovered the illegal substances along with the cash from him," the officer said. "We found that he was first living in Mehrauli and then in Tughlakabad. He shifted to DLF-3 a couple of months ago," he added. A case has been registered at DLF-3 police station under sections 21B (contravention involves quantity, lesser than commercial quantity) and 22C (contravention involves commercial quantity) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The accused is set to be presented before a court for further legal proceedings.
