Mere membership of banned outfit offence under UAPA, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that holding membership of an association declared unlawful by the central government was sufficient to constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

A bench comprising Justices MR Shah, CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol upheld the validity of Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, which was earlier read down by a division bench of the top court in 2011.

The bench ruled: "The aim of UAPA is to prevent certain unlawful activities and prevent the same ... at the cost of repetition, UAPA is to punish the person a member of an unlawful organisation in furtherance of the provisions of the UAPA."


Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA is absolutely in consonance with Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution, and is thus in consonance with the objectives of the UAPA, the court said.

The articles deal with freedom of speech and expression and the government's power to impose reasonable restrictions.

On the question whether provisions of a central legislation could be read down in a case where the same was not assailed, and without having heard the central government, the top court ruled: "Enormous harm would be caused to state if they are not heard ... and Centre should have made submissions to justify 10(a)(i) and what were the objects and purposes". Hence, the court held that Section 10(a)(i) should not have read down by the court, "especially when the constitutional validity of the section was not in question".

The bench held that it was not in agreement with the fact that the court in 2011 had placed reliance on US court judgements.

"We do not say for a moment that United States Supreme Court decisions may not guide us ... But Indian courts are required to consider difference in nature of laws between two countries," the bench held.

In 2011, a division bench of the apex court, while acquitting two people booked under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), had ruled that a TADA court had relied on an alleged confession statement and that mere membership of a banned organisation under the Act could not be ground for conviction.

The division bench had then ruled that mere membership of a banned organisation would not make a person a criminal, unless the person resorted to violence or incited people to violence, or created public disorder by violence or incitement to violence.