Unlawful Activities Prevention Act – 2026

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act - 2026

Policy Update

Anu G.M.

Background

In the aftermath of independence, India was ‘pulled together’ to form the Union of States. Hence, even today, the Indian nation continues to face threats and challenges to its integrity and sovereignty. In 1967, in the wake of the Naxalbari movement in West Bengal, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) was enacted to protect the internal security of India. The Act was enacted to address anti-national and secessionist movements in India. In 1963, on the recommendation of the Committee on National Integration, reasonable restrictions were imposed under Article 19 (Freedom of speech and expression) against activities disturbing the integrity and sovereignty of India through the Constitutional (Sixteenth) Amendment Act. Through this Act, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act came into force.

Initially, the Act did not include provisions for anti-terror activities. Following the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002, the UAPA Act was expanded to include anti-terror activities in 2004. This resonated with various resolutions at the UN Security Council against terrorism. Further, in 2008, the National Investigating Agency (NIA) was established as the principal counter-terrorism law enforcement agency in India. Through the 2008 Amendment Act, the central government was empowered to freeze, seize or attach funds and other financial assets held by, on behalf of the individuals/entities listed in the schedule, or any other person suspected to be engaged in terrorism. In order to counter terrorism funding and money laundering, the Act was amended in 2013 to bring UAPA in line with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force. Recently, the 2019 Amendment introduced provisions for cyber-terrorism, terrorist financing, seizure of property, and designation of individuals as terrorists. 

Features of the Act 

  1. The central government has the power to declare an association “Unlawful” if it indulges in any activity that includes acts and words, spoken or written, or any sign or representation, that supported any claim to bring about “the cession or secession of a part of the territory of India”, or which questions or disclaims the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The ban on organisations can be extended to five years.
  2. Under the Act, the central government may designate an organisation as a terrorist organisation if it:
    • (i) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
    • (ii) prepares for terrorism,
    • (iii) promotes terrorism, or
    • (iv) is involved  in terrorism

After the 2019 Amendment, the Union Government has the power to designate individuals as terrorists without following a formal judicial process.

  1. As per the 2004 Amendment Act, “Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or is likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security (including economic security) or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people in India or any foreign country,” is defined in Section15 of the UAPA as committing a “Terrorist Act.”

The Act defines terrorist acts to include acts committed within the scope of any of the international treaties listed in the Schedule to the Act.

The Schedule lists international treaties, including the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997), and the Convention Against Taking of Hostages (1979).

  1. The Central Government may constitute a tribunal called the “Unlawful Activities Prevention Tribunal” which consists of a High Court Judge, to ban an organisation involved in terrorist acts.
  2. Instead of the usual 15 days, a remand order can be for 30 days, and the maximum period of judicial custody before the filing of a charge sheet can be up to 180 days, instead of the usual 90 days.
  3. Under the Act, bail cannot be granted to suspects if the court thinks that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges are prima facie true. This means the onus is on the accused.
  4. The UAPA provides for the following punishments for terrorist activities:
    • (i) Death penalty or life imprisonment: If the activity results in death.
    • (ii) 5-10 years in jail and a fine: For any other terrorist activity, such as organising a terrorist camp, conspiracy, or recruiting for terrorist activities.
    • (iii) At least 5 years in jail and a fine: For any act “Preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act”.
  1. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has the power to investigate cases under the UAPA.
  2. Under the Act, an Investigating Officer is required to obtain the prior approval of the Director General of Police to seize properties that may be connected with terrorism.  The Bill adds that if the investigation is conducted by an officer of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the approval of the Director General of NIA would be required for seizure of such property.  

Impact of the Act

  1. UAPA has been used against terror outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), which pose direct threats through cross-border terrorism. It checks emerging new terror outfits like the TRF (The Resistance Force), which came into existence in 2019 after the abrogation of Article 370.
  2. The stringent nature of UAPA has effected deterrence against extremist activities in India. Declaring organizations like SIMI and CPI(Maoist) as unlawful under UAPA has restricted their open functioning and recruitment. In the last 5 years, the government has declared 23 organizations are unlawful, the most recent being Awami Action Committee (AAC) in 2025.
  3. The Act has also enabled the identification of organised crimes and complex networks that fund and perpetuate the terrorism ideologically. For example, the ISIS network has been checked under UAPA.
  4. It has prevented the radicalisation of youth by terrorist organisations. For example, the Chhattisgarh Police’s Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) booked two minors for their alleged link to ISIS, influencing youth on social media. Similarly, Hizb-Ut-Tahrir (HuT) has been designated as a terrorist organization under the UAPA by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The MHA cited HuT’s involvement in radicalizing youth, promoting the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, and supporting global terrorist activities, including links to ISIS.
  5. UAPA allows preventive detention, which helps in early intervention to stop terror acts before they occur. For example, Safoora Zargar, a student activist, was arrested and detained under the UAPA for allegedly being part of a conspiracy to incite communal riots in Delhi in 2020. The government alleged that she was associated with a banned extremist group and was involved in organizing anti-CAA protests.
  6. It has strengthened India’s global image as a soft power devoted to international peace and security.

Emerging Issues

  1. Low conviction rate: In 2023, of the 1,686 persons arrested under the law, just 84, or 4.98 per cent, were convicted.
  2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: Arrested for Delhi riots case (2020), JNU student Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid have faced continued bail rejections over the past 5 years. Such prolonged detention is claimed to be a violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21(Right to life).
  3. Use of UAPA in cases involving protest movements and intellectual dissent has attracted national and international criticism. UAPA facilitates arrests of individuals like journalists.
  4. The power of the central government to designate individuals as terrorists without due process of law seems to be executive overreach. 
  5. United Nations special rapporteurs have stated that the provisions of the UAPA 2019 contravene several articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has urged Indian authorities to stop targeting independent human rights defenders and ensure their right to free and fair representation. International human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and CIVICUS, have jointly condemned the misuse of the UAPA to silence journalists, human rights defenders, activists, and critics of the government. This tarnishes the reputation of India globally.

Way Forward

  1. Judicial approval can be introduced before the designation of individuals as terrorists to ensure checks and balances of power.
  2. Imposing time-bound trials prevents unnecessarily long detention.
  3. Making the definition of terrorist acts more precise so as to distinguish dissent from unlawful activities. 
  4. Protection of freedom of speech and expression by arrests with a direct link to incitement of violence. This will also address low conviction rates.
  5. Enhancing transparency and accountability through independent committee reviews to strengthen India’s democratic stature.

Conclusion

India’s fight against terrorism must be uncompromising, but it must also be constitutional. Reforming UAPA through judicial oversight, accountability, and rights-based safeguards will ensure security without sacrificing democracy.

References

  1. Animesh Singh (2026). 5,690 held under UAPA in five years, just 5% convicted, none in Punjab.The Tribune. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/over-5500-arrested-under-uapa-in-five-years-just-5-convicted
  2. Dhristiias (2023). Assessing the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/assessing-the-unlawful-activities-prevention-act
  3. Abhishek Mishra (2026).Umar Khalid and the UAPA question: Why bail remains elusive. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/umar-khalid-and-the-uapa-question-why-bail-remains-elusive-inside-supreme-court-ruling/articleshow/126526696.cms
  4. Vajiram & Ravi (2026). Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, History, UAPA Provisions. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/unlawful-activities-prevention-act/

About the Contributor

Anu.G.M is a Research Intern at IMPRI. She is a student of the Master of Arts in Gender and Development Studies at IGNOU and a UPSC Civil Services aspirant. Her research interests lie in Public Policy Research.

Acknowledgement

The author sincerely thanks Ms. Aasthaba Jadeja, Ms. Bhaktiba Jadeja and the IMPRI team for their valuable support. 

Disclaimer

All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.

Read More at IMPRI

GST Cuts and the Illusion of Relief Amidst Global Tariffs

Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP) & HFSPO, 1989

Author

Related Posts

Talk to Us