Speech As Terror? Rebecca John Warns SC's UAPA Verdict Threatens Political Dissent

Senior Advocate Rebecca John criticised the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of “terrorist act” under UAPA Section 15, warning it risks making political dissent prosecutable as terrorism. Speaking at an event marking Father Stan Swamy's fifth death anniversary, she said the judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stretched a law meant for weapon-based violence. John also criticised UAPA's bail bar under Section 43D(5), calling prolonged pre-trial detention a “multi-year sentence,” and flagged concerns over anonymous witness testimony and poor-quality NIA prosecutions undermining fair trial rights.

Read full article

Speech As Terror? Rebecca John Warns SC's UAPA Verdict Threatens Political Dissent

Senior Advocate Rebecca John on Saturday sharply criticised the Supreme Court's expansive reading of “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), warning that the interpretation risks criminalising political dissent by treating speech as terrorism.

Speaking at an event marking the fifth death anniversary of Father Stan Swamy, John said Section 15's text clearly requires the use of weapons to cause physical violence. But the judgment denying bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case stretched this definition to secure a denial of bail, she said, calling the expansion “alarming.”

“The dangers of this expansion of scope cannot be overstated,” John said, adding that treating speech as a terrorist act opens the door to prosecuting all forms of political dissent under UAPA.

Swamy's Case A Recurring Reference Point

John also revisited Swamy's case, noting that COVID-19 relief measures excluded UAPA and NIA-investigated undertrials from interim bail, despite Swamy's age and Parkinson's disease making him especially vulnerable. She called the classification “irrational” and contrary to Article 21, saying the law had been converted into a tool of oppression.

Section 43D(5) And The 'Multi-Year Sentence'

Turning to systemic issues, John said UAPA's Section 43D(5), as interpreted in the Zahoor Ahmed Watali case, has let mere accusation function as a “multi-year sentence.” While the KA Najeeb ruling eased bail rigours where trials face indefinite delay, she called it, at best, an “apology,” given the law's broader fortification by courts. She noted this limited relief faced fresh scrutiny in the Gulfisha Fatima judgment, creating a situation where fundamental freedoms must “play catch-up with legislative embargoes.”

John further flagged the poor quality of UAPA investigations and prosecutions, arguing that the Supreme Court's response, directing more special courts, sidesteps deeper questions about evidence quality and fair trial rights, especially given the poor legal representation available to accused persons.

Concerns Over Protected Witnesses, NIA Conduct

She also criticised the use of anonymous, redacted testimony from “protected witnesses” placed behind screens, saying this made effective cross-examination impossible and was particularly troubling in NIA prosecutions involving voluminous records and marginalised accused persons.

John pointed to the NIA's recent move seeking cancellation of bail for four Bhima Koregaon accused over a press club meeting, saying it shows the state prioritises maximising the punitive potential of criminal law over fair and efficient trials.

The event was also attended by Advocate Nizam Pasha, human rights activist Nadeem Khan, Delhi University professor Saroj Giri, retired professor Nandita Narrain, and senior journalist John Dayal.