Read Time: 12 minutes

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking relief against alleged targeted political violence against the Muslim minorities in the state of Tripura during the second half of the month of October, 2021. It is stated that efforts were made by the "State of Tripura to monopolize the flow of information and facts emanating from the affected areas by invoking provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (UAPA) against members of civil society including advocates and journalists thereafter."

The plea alleged that those who have made the effort to "bring facts in relation to the targeted violence in the public domain" have been targeted by the state of Tripura through initiation of proceedings under UAPA.

Referring to the case of Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 1076/2019 and Association For Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 1096/2019, it has been said in the petition, which is one in a batch of petitions, that there is already a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the said matters are currently pending before a bench presided by the Chief Justice of India, which vide order dated September 6, 2019 had also issued notice on these petitions.

The plea urges that such proceedings are likely to have a "chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression" because, "If the State is allowed to criminalize the very act of fact finding and reporting - and that too under the stringent provisions of the UAPA in which anticipatory bail is barred and the idea of bail is a remote possibility, then the only facts that will come in the public domain are those that are convenient to the State..."

Stating that "the idea of justice" is compromised in the process of such initiation of proceedings, the plea also states that such moves "strike at the very foundations of a participative democratic society as it curbs the ‘free flow of information and ideas’ and no inconvenient facts will be available in the public domain..."

Facts

The petition states that on October 14 reports emerged from Bangladesh of violence against the Hindu minorities during the period of Durga Puja on allegations of blasphemy.

It says that "in a perverse counterblast, political right wing forces in the State of Tripura started fomenting religious passions against the muslim 
minorities," meant to "ostensibly to protest against the violence in Bangladesh but that led to violence against the muslim minorities in the State of Tripura."

It is further alleged that, "In a targeted and orchestrated manner, there were incidents of arson, looting, and violence on the establishments of Muslim citizens and attacks and burning of mosques at various places in Tripura."

The petitioner states that "news of the ensuing violence that followed have been widely reported in international media such as BBC, The  Economist, and major news media organizations in India," and that a "4-member fact finding team of Advocates including 2 petitioners" in the present case visited some of the affected regions between October 30 and November 1 and published a fact-finding report titled as “Humanity Under Attack in Tripura #MuslimLivesMatter”. 

In this backdrop the petitioner states that the registration of FIR on November 3, a day after the report was made public, at the West Agartala Police Station under Sections 153A/153B/469/471/503/504/120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, against 
“unknown persons” is "ex facie an attempt to curb the free flow of information from the riot affected areas given that there is nothing in the report which even remotely supports any secessional activity."

The grounds pleaded by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR include that the ingredients of the definition of ‘unlawful activities’ under section 2(1)(o) of UAPA are not made out and that the report "does not exaggerate any of the facts". 

Basis the above the petitioners have sought quashing qua the petitioners herein of the FIR mentioned hereinabove.

The petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2(1)(o) r/w Section 13 of the UAPA and provision pertaining to bail under Section 43(d)(5) of the UAPA. 

Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 
provides punishment for unlawful activities. Section 2(1)(o) of 
UAPA, which defines “unlawful activity”, reads as follows:
“2. (1)(o) ‘unlawful activity’, in relation to an individual or 
association, means any action taken by such individual or 
association (whether by committing an act or by words, either 
spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or 
otherwise),—
(i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on 
any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of 
India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the 
Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to 
bring about such cession or secession; or
(ii) which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt 
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or
(iii) which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against 
India;”

The plea submits that the impugned definition of ‘unlawful activities’ prohibits an innocuous speech by threat of punishment and casts a ‘wide net’ on freedom of speech and expression and makes even possession of documentational literature, reporting of information, expression of ideas, thoughts, and discussions which are "no threat to security of 
India and have no tendency to create public disorder, punishable under Section 13 of the Act."

The Supreme Court allowed urgent mentioning of the matter today and the petition is expected to be listed soon for hearing as per the petitioners.

Cause Title: Mukesh & Ors vs State of Tripura & Ors