Case Title: Foundation of media professionals & Anr v UOI & Ors
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 was challenged in a writ petition contesting its constitutionality. A Supreme Court bench consisting of Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat, and J.B. Pardiwala scheduled the case for October 18, 2022.
For the petitioners, the Foundation of Media Professionals, senior attorney Arvind Datar appeared in the case. Lalit, CJI, said that "These issues will be heard on October 18, 2022. The attorney who appeared in the related cases made a notification in that regard."
According to the petition, the Act is a political instrument used by the administration to attack all types of opposition while disguising itself as an anti-terror measure. The petition asserts:
The Act's design is a flagrant violation of the liberties guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It gives the State sweeping authority to retaliate against organisations and people who criticise the government or the majority view.
It claims that the Act's provisions violate people's right to free speech and expression since they are intended to suppress any and all dissent and opposing views of the ruling party. Furthermore, it asserts that the concepts of illegal conduct and terrorist act do not need mens rea and that any statement of personal beliefs regarding the subject of government, cession, or secession may lead to government sanctions under the Act.
According to the petition, the inclusion of creative works like writing, speaking, and painting in the definition of illegal conduct has a chilling impact on free expression.
Additionally, according to the petition "Disaffection towards India, which is included in the definition of "illegal action" but does not have a defined connotation under the Act, can be used to target anyone the government holds a grudge against, from someone who might hold a different opinion. It is argued that the term "illegal conduct" as a category simply serves to stifle resistance and is thus arbitrary and anti-democratic."
As a result, the petition requests that the Act be declared unconstitutional since it is clearly arbitrary and violates the basic rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.