How are terrorists designated under the UAPA? | Explained
The legal framework for designating individuals as terrorists under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) has come under renewed scrutiny, with questions raised about the adequacy of procedural safeguards.
Since the 2019 amendment introduced individual designation powers, 53 individuals have been designated as terrorists by the Central Government under Section 35 of UAPA.
Challenges to the constitutionality of the individual designation provisions are currently pending before the Supreme Court of India.
The designation mechanism — including the composition of the Review Committee and the denotification process — has been examined for compliance with due process norms under the Constitution.
UAPA, 1967 — Origin and Legislative Evolution
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is the primary anti-terror legislation in India. It was originally enacted to deal with secessionist movements and unlawful activities targeting the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Act has undergone significant amendments: in 2004 (to incorporate anti-terror provisions after the repeal of POTA), in 2008 (post the Mumbai attacks, to expand the definition of terrorist acts and strengthen investigation powers), and most significantly in 2019 (to enable designation of individuals as terrorists, not just organizations). Prior to 2019, only organizations could be designated as Terrorist Organisations under Schedule I of the Act. The 2019 Amendment added a new Schedule IV for individual terrorist designees.
Key Details
- Original enactment: 1967, focused on unlawful activities against sovereignty and integrity.
- 2004 amendment: Anti-terror provisions incorporated after POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) was repealed.
- 2008 amendment: Widened definition of terrorist acts; strengthened NIA and investigation provisions.
- 2019 amendment: Introduced individual terrorist designation under Chapter VI (Sections 35–37); added Schedule IV.
- UAPA is on the Concurrent List (Entry 1 — defence of India; entries relating to criminal law and procedure).
The current scrutiny of individual terrorist designations flows directly from the 2019 amendment's new powers — a landmark change in India's counter-terrorism law framework.
Section 35 — Individual Terrorist Designation
Section 35 of UAPA (as amended in 2019) grants the Central Government the power to add an individual's name to the Fourth Schedule of the Act, thereby designating that person as a terrorist. The government can do so if it believes the individual is involved in, or likely to be involved in, terrorism. Critically, no prior judicial hearing is mandated before designation. The designation is made by executive notification. Once listed in Schedule IV, significant legal consequences follow — the designation can affect travel documents, financial accounts, and reputation.
Key Details
- Authority: Central Government (Ministry of Home Affairs) via notification.
- Trigger: Government belief — not a court order — that an individual is involved in terrorism.
- No formal pre-designation hearing is required under the statute.
- First four individuals designated (September 2019): Maulana Masood Azhar, Hafiz Saeed, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, and Dawood Ibrahim — all Pakistan-based individuals already proscribed by the UN Security Council.
- As of the latest public data: 53 individuals have been designated under Section 35.
- Consequences: Listing in Schedule IV can trigger asset freezes, travel document issues, and social stigma.
The absence of formal pre-designation judicial scrutiny is the core procedural concern under challenge — contrasting India's framework with international norms that require some form of due process before designation.
Section 36 — Denotification; Section 37 — Review Committee
Section 36 provides the mechanism for an individual to seek removal from the Fourth Schedule. An affected person may apply to the Central Government for denotification. If the application is rejected, the individual may, within one month of receiving the rejection order, apply to the Review Committee constituted under Section 37 for a review. The Review Committee under Section 37 must be chaired by a person who is, or has been, a judge of a High Court — appointed by the Central Government (with concurrence of the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court for sitting judges). The Committee may have up to three additional members. Critics note that the Review Committee is not an independent judicial tribunal: it is constituted by the Central Government, and there is no provision for an adversarial hearing before the Committee.
Key Details
- Section 36: Denotification mechanism — application first to Central Government, then to Review Committee if refused.
- Section 37: Review Committee — chaired by a High Court judge (sitting or retired); up to three other members.
- Timeframe to apply for review: within one month of rejection of the denotification application.
- Critique: No independent judicial body is involved at the initial designation stage; the Review Committee is executive-constituted, not court-appointed.
- Supreme Court challenge (Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India and related petitions): Constitutionality of Sections 35–37 pending; petitioners argue violation of Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom of speech/expression/association), and 21 (personal liberty and due process).
The two-stage denotification framework (Sections 36–37) is the only procedural safeguard available to a designated individual — making its design and impartiality central to the constitutional debate.
Constitutional Safeguards and Judicial Scrutiny
Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution provide the bedrock against arbitrary state action. Article 14 guarantees equality before law and prohibits arbitrary executive action. Article 19 protects freedoms of speech, expression, movement, and association — all of which can be affected by a terrorist designation. Article 21 requires that any deprivation of personal liberty must follow a fair and just procedure established by law, as expanded by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which held that procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable — not merely any procedure. UAPA designations that occur without judicial oversight have been challenged as falling short of this standard.
Key Details
- Article 14: Equality; bars arbitrary executive classification.
- Article 19(1)(a)–(g): Freedoms affected by designation (speech, movement, occupation, association).
- Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty; requires just and fair procedure (Maneka Gandhi, 1978).
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Procedure depriving liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable — not merely "prescribed by law."
- The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of Sections 35–37; the matter is sub judice.
Every individual designated under Section 35 has a stake in whether the procedure meets the constitutional threshold — making this one of the most significant pending questions in India's internal security law.
- UAPA was originally enacted in 1967; major amendments in 2004, 2008, and 2019.
- The 2019 amendment introduced individual terrorist designation — a first for Indian law.
- Section 35 empowers the Central Government to list individuals in Schedule IV as terrorists.
- First four individuals designated (September 2019): Masood Azhar, Hafiz Saeed, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, Dawood Ibrahim.
- Total individuals designated as of recent data: 53.
- Section 36: Provides for denotification application to Central Government.
- Section 37: Review Committee chaired by a sitting or retired High Court judge; up to three additional members.
- An applicant has one month after rejection to approach the Review Committee.
- Constitutional challenge pending in the Supreme Court (Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India).
- No pre-designation judicial hearing is required under the current statutory text.