A Battle for Free Speech: The Fight Against UAPA's 'Disaffection' Clause

The Foundation for Media Professionals contends that criticism of government policies, as long as it does not incite violence, should not be considered as 'disaffection against India.' Petitioners argue before the Delhi High Court that the UAPA provisions are vague, leading to abuse and restrictions on freedom of speech.

The Delhi High Court commenced hearings on Thursday concerning the controversial provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), particularly the clause regarding 'disaffection against India.' The Foundation for Media Professionals argues that criticism of government policies, unless inciting violence, should not trigger UAPA charges.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the petitioners, highlighted how the vague definition of 'disaffection' poses significant threats to journalists, often resulting in undue incarceration. The Foundation contends that UAPA's broad interpretation undermines Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.

The petition challenges sections of UAPA that deny anticipatory bail and misuse police case diaries as evidence. Judges will further deliberate on this issue in March 2025, alongside other challenges to UAPA's provisions enabling the state to designate individuals as terrorists.

(With inputs from agencies.)