On June 14, 2024, Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena granted sanction to prosecute author Arundhati Roy and Kashmir-based academic Dr Sheikh Showkat Hussain (former Professor of International Law at Central University of Kashmir) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for remarks made at a seminar in New Delhi in 2010. This seminar was organised by the Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners (CRPP), under the banner ‘ Azaadi- the only way’. Based on the accusation of Kashmiri social activist Sushil Pandit, the Delhi police filed a First Information Report (FIR) on November 27, 2010, under sections 153A, 153B, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Sections 153A, 153B, 504, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13 of the UAPA, the Delhi Police requested permission to prosecute both of the accused. Sections 153A, 153B, and 505 of the IPC were the three sections under which the Lieutenant Governor last year approved. Nonetheless, the three-year statute of limitations set forth in these sections prevents the courts from considering the offences after they are purportedly committed. Therefore, it would appear likely that the LG’s approval to bring charges for violations of Section 13 of the UAPA, following a gap of fourteen years, is to overcome this legal hurdle.
The FIRs against Arundhati Roy and Dr Hussain allege the commission of an offence under Section 13 of UAPA, which deals with punishment for unlawful activities. Section 13 of the UAPA comes under Chapter III of the UAPA, which states that the Court shall not take cognisance of the offence unless previous sanction is accorded either by the Central Government or by another officer authorised by the Central Government. More importantly, this sanction is accorded based on material collected by the investigating agency, which forms part of the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is unclear if the Delhi Police took the accusations made in 2010 to a reasonable conclusion. The UAPA’s Rule 3 calls for a final report, and the Supreme Court has previously ruled that granting a sanction is not only a mere formality. In the CBI versus Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013), the Supreme Court maintained that “The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the competent authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to the said authority. This may also be evident from the sanction order, in case it is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the sanction order….” (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115051763/). The Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala made up the Supreme Court bench that decided Judgebir Singh v. National Investigation Agency on May 1, 2023. They mandated that the sanctioning authority thoroughly review the evidence gathered by the investigating agency in the form of a chargesheet before making recommendations for the sanction (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94971837/). It is unlikely that the protections outlined by the Supreme Court have been followed in the absence of specific details in the official order from the Lieutenant Governor’s office approving the prosecution of the accused under the UAPA.
A careful examination of the speech given by Ms Roy shows that she had shown the lack of democracy existing in different parts of India, including Kashmir, Northeast and Central India, where the government military and semi-military forces are waging war against the citizens of India. In her talk, she urged people to be on the side of justice, justice for even the weakest sections of society. Thus, it was more of a call for establishing a true democracy where people need not live under threat. It is also an open secret that the speeches made by the accused did not give rise to any violence in the last 14 years. Further, no such statement is available for Dr Hussain. Then, what had prompted the government to act on this 14-year-old FIR suddenly? It will be clear if one follows the trajectory of curbing democracy practised by the country’s present rulers.
The antecedents of the Central government in the last 10 years show that the real intent of these steps is to choke any voice of dissent. Thus, we have seen that the National Investigation Agency sent to jail 16 leading intellectuals and activists with false charges in the Bhima-Koregaon case. As pointed out by the CDRO and others, independent experts have conducted examinations that revealed that spyware Pegasus was used to tamper with computer data to prosecute these defenders of democracy. Similarly, students and youths who protested the imposition of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) were sent to jail under the UAPA, and some of them have been languishing in jails without any trial or bail. We may also remember that last year, Newsclick Founder-Editor, Prabir Purakayastha and Amit Chakravarty, were arrested.
Thus, the LG’s invocation of the UAPA is politically motivated and should not be seen in isolation. It does not flow out of concern for national security or interest but seeks to deploy the UAPA as a tool to serve one’s political masters. In a Press Release issued by us (6th September 2023), we had noted that the intimidation of Indian citizens who want to raise democratic demands and seek accountability from the political executive is in sync with the speech made by the National Security Advisor Ajit Doval at the passing out parade of the 73rd batch of IPS probationers at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy (SVP NPA) in Hyderabad. In that speech (https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/hyderabad/ajit-doval-nsa-warfare-civil-society-7619555/)., he had termed the civil society as the “new frontiers of war” or the “fourth-generation warfare”. He further went on to denigrate the activities of democratic rights and urged the graduating IPS to be aware of this war front. Thus, through speech and action, the present regime has made it amply clear that they will not tolerate any criticism or resistance to their vision of creating a Hindu Rashtra or against their mission of opening the country to corporate-sponsored loot of our natural resources and the people. All democratic-minded citizens need to understand the ploy and prevent the establishment of a police state.
CDRO demands that prosecution be withdrawn with immediate effect against Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain under the UAPA and the IPC provisions for a speech made almost fourteen years ago. We appeal to all progressive and democratic forces to come together and build a movement to repeal UAPA, which is unconstitutional and a draconian anti-people law used to suppress all kinds of democratic voices.
(Asish Gupta) (Tapas Chakraborty) (Kranthi Chaitanya)
Coordinators, CDRO
Constituent Organisations of CDRO:
Association for Democratic Rights (AFDR, Punjab); Association for Democratic Rights (AFDR, Haryana), Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR, West Bengal); Asansol Civil Rights Association(West Bengal); Bandi Mukti Committee(West Bengal); Civil Liberties Committee (Andhra Pradesh); Civil Liberties Committee (Telangana); Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (Maharashtra); Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR TamilNadu); Coordination for Human Rights (Manipur); Manab Adhikar Sangram Samiti (Assam); Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights; Peoples’Committee for Human Rights (Jammu and Kashmir); Peoples Democratic Forum(Karnataka); Jharkhand Council for Democratic Rights (Jharkhand); Peoples Union For Democratic Rights (Delhi); Peoples Union for Civil Rights (Haryana), Campaign for Peace & Democracy in Manipur, Delhi; Janakeeya Manushyaavakasha Prasthanam, Kerala.
