 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we are with Mr. Anand Grover to discuss the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Thank you Mr. Grover. Thank you. And Mr. Grover, about the UAPA, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, so we have Section 43D that places restrictions in terms of application for bail and also has long periods of time of detention. So how do these provisions really stand up to say the whole eternity, 1419 and 21? Article 21 of the Constitution is a very important article. It is the only article which cannot even be suspended in the emergency. It was earlier suspended during the earlier emergency and the code in ADM Jabalpur held that you can even shoot a person and nothing can be done. So now it can't be suspended also. It says that no person's life or liberty can be taken without procedure established by law. In Manikar Gandhi, they said it's not just a procedure. It is the substantive law which also has to be looked into and the law and the procedure must be both reasonable, just and fair. So there has to be just law. So we have introduced what is the notion of substantive reasonables in our law. Now this law particularly is different from the ordinary criminal procedure. So it adds a further rider to the, adds a further condition whereby the code must be satisfied or it should actually look into the matter materials placed before it and should, if it comes to the conclusion that the allegations of the, in the case, a prima facie true, then bail will not be granted. This is in a number of cases, another laws, a prevention of money laundering, narcotics, etc. In so far as prevention of money laundering is concerned, similar section was struck down by the Supreme Court because it was manifestly arbitrary. But that section actually did not specify the offenses only under the money laundering which is section three and four. But it said that scheduled offenses which are from Indian Penal Code waging a war to narcotics to terrorist offenses, they could maybe lighter or very heavy, they were all clubbed together. Earlier they were separate, they were then clubbed together and they said these are, this is manifestly arbitrary. So that was a, that is the reason why it was struck down. Now in this case there is no challenge to the act yet, so we have to see. But it imposes a huge burden on the defendant or the accused to get bail. Bail is supposed to be the rule and not granting of bail or judicial or police custody is the exception. But in these cases we see like in the narcotics act and all the other terrorist type of acts and once you're inside you can't get bail and that becomes a life sentence. So this is a very unjust law in terms of bail and also substantively there are other issues with their law which we have to address. Because also the period of time in detention is also much larger, I mean much longer than say in the IPC. Well you see the thing is like, no these type of laws you will actually be inside till the trial is over. If it is in your favor then you will get out. But if it is against you, which is most likely the case, then you'll be in till, till lifetime or whatever the, the conviction centers is. Because also when no, the prima facie case is to be made out, this is also on the basis of the case diary and other materials as supplied by the prosecution. Yes, because at the time of bail all the documents are not available to the accused or the defendant. The, they only have what is called the remand application. The remand application only gives the brief summary. If it is true it may give you quite a bit. But the case diaries are in respect of the investigation. In that case diary, you know you can say whatever you want. It should be true to the investigation. Now for example there are cases where the case diary shows something completely different from the FIR. So how do you believe it? So case diaries and whether the magistrate's looked into it or not is another issue as it's been coming out in the past. So if case diary is not honest or the magistrates don't look into the cases just because it's a terrorist case, they just grant remand and do not grant bail. Then it's a very, very serious issue. So, so is there a possibility that political considerations may also prompt certain, you know, they should not. They have to look at the material. They should not by law. But invariably people are being judged because, and this is not a new thing, it's been going on forever. Moment you label a person a terrorist, that's it. Or a person who's dealing with commercial narcotics or commercial trafficking as it's called, of commercial quantities or immoral traffic prevention act where there's trafficking of individuals. When the person is alleged to be engaged in that, then suddenly the judge's minds are made up, you know, they won't give you bail. So these considerations do play a very important part. So now when you're talking about that the moment these allegations are made, then, you know, certain perceptions are formed. So how would this play out? I mean, yesterday we had the Supreme Court to give its decision in the ISRO Espionage case where the state police had carried out the investigation, but later the CBI had given all the accused a clean shit. Well, no, it's not... What had happened in that case was that it was held to be a malefied investigation when Mr. Naminaran was an ISRO scientist was basically tortured and there's no basis of carrying out an investigation against him. So the Supreme Court held that it was so and not this time, earlier time, and then the question came whether they're liable for compensation. So they filed a writ petition, which is a constitutional remedy, and in that they got an amount of 50 lakhs, which is subject to the civil damages that he may get in a suit which is independently filed. So they have short circuited the whole thing and appointed a committee headed by Dr. Jain, Dr. DK Jain, who was a judge of the Supreme Court who will decide how much the damages should be. That is based on the fact that the investigation and imprisonment and arrest etc. is completely malefied. Now, for example, under the Act, a bona fide acts are protected, but if the act is malefied, that you are trying to just fix a person, though there's no basis for it, then you're liable for damages. So this will then again fall under the constitutional tort remedy? There is a constitutional tort, but the suit is not a constitutional tort. It is a damages suit, but there are decisions which say that the state has sovereign immunity. That notion of sovereign immunity has been scuttled over a period of time and whittled down, and thereby this constitutional tort remedy has been adopted over a period of time. Thank you, Mr. Grover. Thank you. And thank you for being with us here at NewsClick. We hope that you will keep watching our videos.