Critically examine the provision for designating individuals as terrorists under the UAPA, 1967, and discuss the safeguards against its misuse.

Q. Critically examine the provision for designating individuals as terrorists under the UAPA, 1967, and discuss the safeguards against its misuse. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 empowered the Centre to designate individuals — and not merely organisations — as terrorists under Section 35, listing them in the Fourth Schedule [1][2]. Potent as a counter-terror instrument, its purely executive character invites due-process scrutiny.

Rationale and strengths - Closes a loophole: banned outfits often resurface under new names; designating the person, not the label, targets the operative himself [2]. - Pre-emptive reach: in July 2026 the MHA designated 23 Pakistan/PoK-based operatives — 17 Pakistani and 6 Indian nationals — for infiltration, arms smuggling, recruitment and terror fundraising [3]. - Financial choke: enables asset freezing, travel curbs and denial of funding, mirroring the UNSC 1267 and FATF approach to terror financing. - Strategic signalling: strengthens India's diplomatic case against cross-border terrorism.

Critical concerns - No judicial threshold: designation rests on the government's satisfaction; neither conviction nor even a pending prosecution is a precondition [1]. - No pre-decisional hearing: the "terrorist" tag attaches before any trial, causing reputational and civil disability — a strain on the presumption of innocence and Article 21. - Wide discretion: the broad definition of a terrorist act under Section 15 leaves interpretive latitude to the executive. - Remedy is largely internal, so the first appeal lies within the executive branch itself.

Safeguards available - Section 36: the affected individual may apply to the Centre for de-notification, i.e. removal from the Fourth Schedule [1]. - Sections 36(4) and 37: on rejection, review lies to a Review Committee chaired by a sitting or former High Court judge (a sitting judge appointed with the Chief Justice's concurrence), which applies judicial-review principles [1]. - Constitutional review under Articles 32 and 226, and notification through the official Gazette, preserve transparency and accountability.

The provision is therefore necessary but not self-limiting. Codifying recorded reasons, time-bound periodic review of listings and swift disposal of de-notification pleas would reconcile the security imperative with Article 21 — ensuring the law remains a shield against terror rather than a source of arbitrariness.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — India Code (Act No. 37 of 1967) — Sections 15, 35, 36, 37; Fourth Schedule; de-notification and Review Committee 2. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019 — PRS Legislative Research — power to designate individuals as terrorists introduced in 2019 3. Ministry of Home Affairs press release on designation of 23 individuals as terrorists under UAPA (4 July 2026), Press Information Bureau — number, nationality and alleged activities of the designated individuals