Balancing National Security And Human Rights: A Critical Analysis Of India’s Counter- Terrorism Laws In The Context Of International Legal Obligations
- IJLLR Journal
- 4 days ago
- 2 min read
Shailesh Pratap Singh, Amity University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
ABSTRACT
India’s counter-terrorism legal framework, anchored in theUnlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, reflects the state’s resolve to combat terrorism but raises critical questions about its compatibility with international human rights law. This paper examines the tension between India’s security imperatives and its obligations under global treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and UN counter-terrorism conventions. Through a doctrinal analysis of domestic statutes, international instruments, and judicial precedents, alongside case studies like the Bhima Koregaon arrests and the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the study reveals systemic flaws in India’s approach to counter-terrorism.
The UAPA’s expansive definition of “terrorist act,” which includes vague terms like “overawing public order,” coupled with procedural mechanisms such as prolonged detention without charge (up to 180 days) and reverse burden of proof (Section 43E), frequently violates due process guarantees under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and Article 9 of the ICCPR. Empirical data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) highlights alarming trends: between 2015 and 2022, over 6,000 individuals were arrested under the UAPA, with Muslims, Dalits, and activists disproportionately targeted. Landmark cases, including the custodial death of Jesuit activist Fr. Stan Swamy and the alleged evidence fabrication in the Bhima Koregaon case, underscore the law’s misuse to criminalize dissent and marginalize vulnerable groups.
While India has ratified 18 UN counter-terrorism conventions and complies with FATF recommendations on terror financing, gaps persist. The failure to adopt theUN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance weakens accountability for custodial abuses. Comparative analysis with frameworks like the U.S. Patriot Act and the U.K. Terrorism Act, 2000, reveals India’s lack of safeguards such as judicial oversight and detention limits.
