Supreme Court yet to review verdict on banned outfit membership

NEW DELHI: The Centre had in 2016 sought a review of a Supreme Court ruling of 2011 that declared that mere membership of a banned terrorist organisation would not be an offence unless accompanied by violence or incitement to offence, but the court is yet to review it.

A bench comprising justices Justice Markandey Katju and Gyansudha Misra in a case from Assam, where Anup Bhuyan was convicted for being a member of the Ulfa, had ruled that merely being a member would not be enough to be an offence under the Act. The convicted person must either have participated in violence or incited violence, it ruled. The court rejected guilt by association enshrined in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967.

The government sought a review of the verdict in 2016, arguing that the 2011 ruling will hamper law-enforcers’ attempts to rein in terror groups. A three-judge bench led by then CJI JS Khehar and Justices V Gopala Gowda and Arun Misra agreed to review the ruling and directed that the case be listed on a non-miscellaneous day but the case has not been taken up yet.


The case gains significance now as UAPA has been invoked against five activists arrested on allegations of funding, supporting and being members of banned Maoist outfits. A host of Maoist outfits figure in the long list of outlawed organisations under UAPA. Activists have alleged they have been arrested to quell dissent against the BJP governments at the Centre and Maharashtra.

UAPA, reminiscent of the now-repealed Tada, turns a basic tenet of ‘innocent till proven guilty’ in criminal law on its head and shifts the burden of disproving the charges on the accused. Provisions for obtaining bail too are onerous.