The Supreme Court has recently set aside its 2011 judgments, which had ruled that mere membership of a banned organization cannot be a crime. The court has restored the doctrine of “guilt by association” and affirmed the validity of Section 10(a)(i) in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, which makes membership of a banned organization a crime punishable with a jail term of up to two years. The court noted that continued membership of a banned organization should be a crime against the sovereignty and integrity of the country. The court was considering the Centre’s plea to review the two judgments of 2011, which had come while hearing two separate cases of bail and conviction under TADA. The Centre complained that the reading down of the TADA provision had also impacted a similar provision under the UAPA.
The arguments put forth by both sides in the case were focused on the legal validity of the doctrine of “guilty by association” and the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which make membership of a banned organization a criminal offense. The solicitor general for the Union government argued that the doctrine was necessary for maintaining the security of the nation, and that membership in a banned organization should not be considered an unbridled right. On the other hand, the senior advocate for the opposing side argued that previous judgments by the Supreme Court have held that an overt act of incitement or violence must be present before prosecution can occur. The Supreme Court bench reserved its verdict in February, taking note of the fact that the 2011 judgments had come in criminal cases where the legal validity of the TADA provision or the doctrine of “guilty by association” had not been questioned. The bench also questioned its jurisdiction to go into the constitutional validity of a provision without a proper challenge to the law.
