Abstract

The article "Categorizing Terrorists in India: Scrutinizing a Citizen's Violation of Human Rights" explores the complexities surrounding the classification of terrorists in India and its implications on citizens' human rights, particularly under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Terrorism has long plagued India, necessitating a robust approach to identify and counter such acts. The UAPA Act emerged as a governing body to address unlawful and terrorist activities, but its recent amendment in 2019 raised concerns about potential violations of fundamental rights. This article critically examines the UAPA Act's provisions, especially the controversial 2019 amendment, which allows the government to designate individuals as terrorists without incriminating evidence, reversing the burden of proof and challenging the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." The article delves into the rights granted to normal accused individuals under Indian law and compares them with the lack of specific rights provided to designated terrorists. The study highlights instances of misuse and arbitrary use of the UAPA Act, leading to wrongful detentions and acquittals. It addresses the constitutional principles of presumption of innocence and due process, arguing that the Act infringes on these rights. Furthermore, the article discusses the international standards of human rights, pointing out how the UAPA Act falls short of fulfilling them. In conclusion, the article advocates for a balanced approach that upholds the rule of law, protects citizens' human rights, and ensures fair treatment of designated individuals. It calls for a comprehensive examination of the UAPA Act's provisions to rectify its shortcomings and prevent potential abuses of power.

Keywords