Contemporary challenges to civil liberties in India.
Overview
Despite a strong constitutional framework, civil liberties in India face sustained pressure from
security legislation, executive overreach, and technological surveillance. This page examines the
key contemporary threats and the ongoing debates surrounding them.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
India's primary anti-terror law. Critics argue that its broad definition of "unlawful activity,"
stringent bail provisions (Section 43D(5)), and admissibility of confessions before police officers
create a chilling effect on dissent and enable prolonged pre-trial detention.
Section 43D(5): Creates a virtual bar on bail by requiring the court to be
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true.
Admissibility of confessions: Confessions made before a police officer are
admissible as evidence, unlike under ordinary criminal law (Section 25, Indian Evidence Act).
Designation of individuals as terrorists: The 2019 amendment allowed the
government to designate individuals (not just organizations) as terrorists without a judicial process.
Controversy: The UAPA has been used against activists, journalists, and academics
in high-profile cases including the Bhima Koregaon case and the Delhi riots case. Critics argue
it criminalizes dissent; supporters cite national security imperatives.
Sedition and Its Successors
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — the colonial-era sedition law — was stayed by the
Supreme Court in May 2022 and formally repealed by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
However, its replacement — Section 150 of the BNS — retains similar language
criminalizing acts "endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India."
Section 150 BNS punishes acts "by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or by electronic communication, or otherwise" that excite or attempt to excite
secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities.
The Law Commission recommended retaining the offence in its 279th Report (2023), arguing it
is necessary for national security.
Debate: Free speech advocates argue that the new provision is essentially sedition
by another name. The Supreme Court's 2022 stay on Section 124A is technically still in effect
pending a final decision.
Internet Shutdowns
India leads the world in government-ordered internet shutdowns. While justified on grounds of
public order and national security, these shutdowns disproportionately affect access to information,
education, healthcare, and livelihoods — raising questions under Articles 19 and 21.
Legal basis: Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or
Public Safety) Rules, 2017 under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): The Supreme Court held that internet
shutdowns must satisfy the tests of proportionality and necessity, and must be publicly declared
with reasons.
Impact: Shutdowns cost the Indian economy an estimated ₹2,000+ crore per day
during major disruptions (per ICRIER estimates).
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958
Grants sweeping powers to armed forces in "disturbed areas," including immunity from prosecution
without central government sanction. Operational in parts of the Northeast and Jammu and Kashmir,
AFSPA has been criticized by human rights organizations for enabling extrajudicial killings and torture.
Section 4: Empowers armed forces to arrest without warrant, enter and search
premises, and use force (including lethal) if "reasonable suspicion" exists.
Section 6: Requires central government sanction for prosecution of armed forces
personnel, creating a near-impossible barrier to accountability.
Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005): Recommended repealing AFSPA and
incorporating its provisions into the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act with safeguards.
The recommendation was never implemented.
Ongoing debate: Multiple UN human rights bodies have called for repeal of AFSPA.
The government has partially withdrawn it from some Northeastern states but maintains it is
necessary for national security in disturbed areas.