The divisional bench consists of judges like Gadkari and Neel Gokhale that Uapa is healthy in its current form. File | Photo Credit: Hind
The Bombay High Court rejected a petition on Thursday (July 17, 2025) that question the constitutional validity of the Act on Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (UAPA) and also the section 124a (stay) of the Indian Criminal Code (IPC).
The divisional bench consists of judges like Gadkari and Neel Gokhale that Uapa is healthy in its current form. The court rejected the petition 2021 submitted by Anil Baburao Baile, 46, the inhabitants of Bombai, who issued a notification of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020.
Mr. Baile questioned the validity of UAP and changed it with the current and section 124a of the Indian Criminal Code and prayed for the statement of these laws as ultra virres and unconstitutional; and cancel and cancel the NIA notification issued to him. He said that it was necessary to explore the meaning of “illegal activists”, “terrorists” and “incentives”. “Nowhere in Chapter IV” UAPA “terrorists” is not defined; What is defined is the terrorist act in section 15. The word “illegal activity” is defined in section 2 (a). O) of the Act and “Incentive” is defined in section 124a IPC, “said the petition.
Mr. Baile also argued that the changes made by UAP – especially those that include the UN Security Council Resolution of 2001 on international terrorism – have made it possible to identify Indian citizens or organizations as terrorists without adequate guarantees or definitions.
“Nowhere does the Constitution allow adequate powers to decide, and parliament cannot be provided with the authority to declare the organization illegal,” the petition said.
The bench in the arguments did not find any merit and concluded that the provisions of the law had met the constitutional assembly and rejected the petition. A detailed order must still be uploaded.
Published – 17 July 2025 22:44 IS IS
