Bombay High Court upholds constitutional validity of UAPA, rejects sedition challenge
A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Neela Gokhale held that the UAPA, in its current form, is constitutionally sound. The Court rejected the 2021 petition filed by Anil Baburao Baile, 46, a Mumbai resident, who was issued a notice by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020.
Mr. Baile had challenged the validity of the UAPA and amended it up-to-date, and section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, and prayed for a declaration of these laws as ultra vires and unconstitutional; and to quash and set aside the NIA notice issued to him. He said that the meaning of 'unlawful activists', 'terrorist', and 'sedition' needs to be examined. 'Nowhere in Chapter IV of UAPA 'Terrorist' is defined; what is defined is Terrorist Act in section 15. The word 'Unlawful Activities' is defined in section 2(o) of the said act, and 'Sedition' is defined in section 124A of the IPC,' the petition said.
Mr. Baile further argued that the amendments made to UAPA—especially those incorporating the 2001 UN Security Council resolution on international terrorism—enabled the government to arbitrarily designate Indian citizens or organisations as terrorists without adequate safeguards or definitions.
'Nowhere does the Constitution authorise a blanket power to the executive in deciding, and Parliament cannot be granted blanket power to declare an organisation as unlawful,' the petition contended.
The Bench found no merit in the arguments and concluded that the provisions of the Act met constitutional muster and dismissed the petition. A detailed order is yet to be uploaded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
23 minutes ago
- Economic Times
New income tax bill 2025- Will fewer words mean fewer compliance burdens?
iStock While the new bill does simplify the language of its predecessor, the Income Tax Act 1961, it does clearly address certain challenges such as TDS issues, refund and appeal delays and more The new Income Tax Bill, 2025 is touted as a long-overdue rewrite of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Tabled in Parliament on 13 February, it is leaner—nearly half the word count of the old Act—visually cleaner, and organised into schedules and tables for easy navigation. The Select Committee examining the Bill is likely to table its report on 21 July with 285 recommendations, as the monsoon session of Parliament begins. This brevity is welcome, but the real question is: has the law become easier to comply with, or just easier to read? For most salaried individuals, pensioners, HUFs, and small businesses—the bulk of India's taxpayers— clean language alone isn't enough. They seek a system that's truly easier: fewer hurdles, faster resolutions, and fairer treatment. Let's explore certain key areas that reveal the difference between surface-level simplification and real compliance ease. 1. Plain in language, but legally? The Bill does try to replace certain complicated legal jargons with easier-to-understand English counterparts. It replaces the confusing dual year concepts of 'assessment year' and 'previous year' with a uniform 'tax year'. Similarly, 'notwithstanding anything' makes way for the simpler phrase 'irrespective of'. However, the Bill does little to demystify these provisions for average brevity is mainly due to smart formatting. Long subsections, provisos and explanations have been recast into separate schedules and tables. While it improves readability, core legal complexities remain: e.g., bulky clauses of eligible saving and investment avenues in Section 80C of the existing Act are now part of Schedule XV, with a shorter main provision under Section 123 in the Bill—thus streamlining form, not Bill retains the substantive core of the existing Act. The five heads of income remain unchanged, as does the computational architecture. Key reliefs and thresholds, including the `12-lakh exemption in the new tax regime, are still there. This ensures continuity but also retains historical complexities. Areas like capital gains, holding periods, asset classification, overlapping exemptions under sections 54, 54EC, 54F, and fair market value (FMV) rules are untouched and navigating them demands expertise. 2. Tedious TDS compliance The new tabular layout for tax deduction at source (TDS) provisions—listing rates, thresholds, and deductee types—reduces confusion, but procedural pain points persist. Refunds of excess TDS mistakenly deducted and deposited by deductors still require manual follow-up, suffer delays, and lack transparency. The Bill misses an opportunity to mandate automatic system-driven refunds for over-deductions. 3. Faceless assessments issues In the current Act, Section 144B outlines faceless assessment in legislative the new Bill relegates this whole framework to executive rule-making under Section 273. By making it a government-notified scheme instead of embedding it in the law, the Bill lowers parliamentary oversight. It may offer administrative flexibility but dilutes legislative sanctity and taxpayer protection. Faceless reassessments, appeals and penalty proceedings are similarly diluted, raising worries on transparency and legal sanctity. 4. Belated returns & refund panic While Section 263 of the Bill, corresponding to Section 139 of the Act, mandates return filing by specified taxpayers on or before due date, it also adds a new category—any person seeking to claim a refund must now file their return by the due date. This requirement has no parallel in Section 139 of the current 239 of the current law allows refund claims through any return filed as per Section 139, including belated or revised returns. In the new Bill, Section 263(1)(a)(ix) disqualifies returns filed after the due date from claiming refunds, thus barring belated or revised returns from claiming refunds. Unless clarified or amended, this provision is a regressive departure and risks unfairly denying refunds to honest but delayed cognizance of this, the Select Committee has reportedly recommended for the deletion of this clause. 5. Delay in appeals continues Under both laws, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 'may' dispose of appeals within a year. In reality, it often takes 4-5 years. Refunds get stuck, and justice is delayed. The current draft of the Bill does not make this timeline mandatory. 6. Digital enforcement sans rights While strengthening enforcement by authorising access to digital footprint, cloud data, and personal devices, the Bill raises privacy concerns. Strong oversight and clear limits must check the powers given. 7. Family ownership Families today often share ownership and income. But the tax law still treats each individual in isolation, leading to misattributed income or unwanted clubbing. The Bill missed an opportunity to allow for declaration-based beneficial ownership or joint filings. While enforcement adapts to the digital era, compliance is stuck in the simplification must entail easier TDS compliances and regime choices, faster refunds, timely appeals, privacy safeguards, and rules reflect real financial lives. Until these changes follow, the burden on honest taxpayers may remain largely unchanged. The Auhtor is FOUNDER, TAXAARAM INDIA AND PARTNER, SM MOHANKA & ASSOCIATES (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Hidden riches: India's bold move to unlock dormant mineral wealth
New Delhi: As the race for critical minerals intensifies globally, India is looking to lift a long-standing restriction that bars miners from extracting any mineral other than the one they were originally licensed to extract, two people aware of the development said. The reform, targeting thousands of mines allocated before 2015 when mineral blocks were allotted without auctions, will allow leaseholders to commercially mine newly-discovered strategic minerals, including lithium, cobalt, and rare earths, which are vital for key sectors including clean energy, automobiles, electronics, and defence. The government plans to introduce an amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act) in the monsoon session of Parliament that starts on Monday, the officials cited above said on the condition of anonymity. The new provisions will cover over 2,500 legacy mining leases, many of which are currently idle. The move will unlock their potential to revive operations and extract minerals critical to India's economic and strategic goals. Under the proposed norms, the miner will be issued a separate licence through a deemed approval process, without any fresh auctions or additional premiums, the officials said. A query on the issue sent to the mines ministry remained unanswered till press time. Currently, miners in India are prohibited from extracting any mineral not listed in their original lease agreement, even if it is found during exploration. This rule is followed in the case of mines allotted by states to mining entities prior to auctions being made mandatory for the allocation of any natural resource. This has led to valuable associated minerals being either ignored or discarded as waste. In contrast, countries with mature mining regimes—including Australia, Indonesia and Brazil—permit leaseholders to extract all economically-viable minerals within the same block, subject to certain clearances. Meanwhile, miners can extract any mineral from mines auctioned since 2015 by paying a premium. Since 2015, only about 450 mines have been auctioned so far. Under the amendments planned, although the miner will be given a separate licence for mining the new mineral, there would be a process of deemed approval, and without any additional premium, one of officials quoted above said. 'Unlike auctioned blocks, currently there is no provision for the inclusion of associated critical minerals in a non-auctioned mining lease. Now, these non-auctioned operational mines would be allowed to mine even critical minerals," the official added. Associated critical minerals are strategic minerals, such as cobalt, germanium, and cadmium, that are found in small quantities along with other minerals like lead, zinc, and copper. Rare earth minerals are a subset of critical minerals. The new framework will enable miners to extract minerals that are designated as critical to the economy, even if those were discovered unintentionally during bulk mining of other mainstream minerals. According to government data, there were 3,007 mining leases, excluding coal, lignite, petroleum, gas, atomic and minor minerals, in India as of March 31, 2023, covering a total area of 2.82 lakh hectares. These leases, spread across 23 states and Union Territories, were granted by state governments for 34 minerals. About half of them are non-operational. Officials believe that the new policy could encourage the reopening of many of these dormant mines. India has ramped up its efforts to secure critical minerals in recent years, driven by both domestic industrial demand and geopolitical concerns over China's dominance in rare earths. In January, the government approved the National Critical Mineral Mission to coordinate these efforts. Earlier, the MMDR Act was amended in 2023 to allow the Centre to auction mining leases and composite licences for critical and strategic minerals listed under Part D of the First Schedule of the Act. Following the amendment, the Centre has auctioned 24 critical mineral blocks, including four mining leases and 20 composite licences. Between 2020-21 and the 2023 amendment, a total of 44 critical mineral blocks were auctioned, of which 20 were auctioned by state governments. To date, about 450 mineral blocks have been auctioned, including 24 critical mineral blocks after the MMDR 2023 amendment. In parallel, the Centre in 2024 decided to take over the auctioning of exploration licences for critical and deep-seated minerals, following poor uptake by states. The move marked the first time that India began offering exploration licences to attract specialized mining and exploration companies to identify new deposits. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2023, granted the Centre powers to notify and auction exploration licences for 29 critical and deep-seated minerals. Despite these initiatives, progress at the state level has been slow and inconsistent. In 2023, an expert committee set up by the Centre identified 30 minerals as critical to India, including lithium and vanadium. In January this year, the Union cabinet approved the National Critical Mineral Mission. On 27 June, Mint reported that India plans to introduce a range of measures including the provision of viability gap funding to boost the processing of rare earth elements as the country copes with supply constraints from China. 'Our laws in India explicitly prohibit the mining leaseholder from mining any mineral other than those specified in the lease grant and approved mining plan. This is not the case in countries with successful mining industries, where there is no explicit prohibition. The point is that mining is an exclusive operation, two parties cannot have the lease over any one area. In a situation where there is occurrence of a critical mineral in an existing lease, prohibition to mine the critical mineral will only ensure that the critical mineral stays below the ground or goes as waste," said Rajnish Gupta, Partner, Tax and Economic Policy Group, EY India. The mining industry body sees the government's proposal as a 'low-hanging fruit" that could deliver quick results, subject to use of the right technology. 'Extraction of critical minerals from exploration licence, composite licence or mining lease given recently will take anywhere between 5 and 12 years, depending on the kind of licences," said B.K. Bhatia, director general of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI). 'Extraction of these important minerals from mining waste or residue could be a low-hanging fruit that could be brought to production quickly. But concerted effort is required to involve technologies that could bring out commercially-viable minerals..." Apart from domestic resources, India is also looking beyond its borders to secure critical minerals. State-owned firms like Coal India Ltd and Khanij Bidesh India Ltd (KABIL) are scouting for mines abroad. The upcoming MMDR Amendment Bill, 2025, will also include provisions to allow the Centre to use over ₹6,000 crore from the National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) for exploration and acquisition of operational mining assets overseas. At the recent BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Prime Minister Narendra Modi underscored the strategic significance of critical minerals. 'We need to work together to make supply chains for critical minerals and technology secure and reliable. It's important to ensure that no country uses these resources for its own selfish gain or as a weapon against others," he had said. India has also joined hands with the US, Japan, and Australia under the Quad Critical Minerals Initiative, committing to coordinate efforts to diversify and secure mineral supply chains.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
High Court verdict on batch of petitions filed in 2006 Mumbai train blasts today
More than 19 years after the Mumbai train bombings on July 11, 2006, the Bombay High Court is scheduled to pass the judgement on 11 appeals filed by the state as well as the convicts in the case on July 11, 2006, major explosions at seven locations on Mumbai's suburban rail network in a span of 11 minutes claimed 189 lives and injured 827 13 accused were arrested, 15 others were declared wanted, some allegedly in Pakistan. The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) invoked the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), filing the chargesheet in November 2006. In 2015, the trial court convicted 12 accused, five of whom were sentenced to death, while the remaining seven were sentenced to life per the law, the state government then filed a petition in the High Court seeking confirmation of the death sentences. The accused also filed appeals challenging their convictions and the state had filed for confirmation of death sentences in 2015, the appeals were filed between 2019 and spite of the appeals being filed, they remained unheard of for a long time as the evidence was voluminous and one division bench of the High Court had to dedicatedly hear only this the appeals came up before many benches but could not be heard. Finally, one of the convicts in the case, Ehtesham siddiqui, filed a plea seeking expeditious hearing of the that, a special bench was constituted which heard the appeals for almost six months and wrote the judgements for the last six months.- Ends IN THIS STORY#Mumbai
