J&K High Court Upholds UAPA Charges for Secessionist Activities
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has recently highlighted that actions such as raising secessionist slogans and leading a mob alongside separatist figures can prima facie be classified as “unlawful activity” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This pivotal observation came from a Bench led by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani.
The case in question involved Mohd Yousuf Lone, who was accused of leading a mob with Hurriyat Conference chairman Syed Ali Shah Geelani in Kupwara in November 2013. The mob reportedly engaged in anti-national sloganeering and threw stones at security personnel. Initially, a trial court in Kupwara had relieved Lone from charges under Section 171-C and 171-F of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), as well as Section 13 of the UAPA. The case was then moved to a Magistrate’s court to address remaining charges under Sections 147 (rioting) and 336 (endangering peace) of the RPC.
However, the Jammu and Kashmir administration challenged the trial court’s discharge order. The High Court, on August 27, decided in favor of the administration’s appeal. It concluded that Lone’s alleged activities indeed fell under the scope of “unlawful activity” as defined by the UAPA, thereby opposing the trial court’s earlier decision.
The Court emphasized that Section 2(o) of the UAPA describes “unlawful activity” as actions meant to cause the cession of Indian territory from the Union, incite such cession, or disrupt India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The evidence, including recorded slogans and Lone’s leadership role, created a strong suspicion warranting Lone’s trial for the offense, with the ultimate determination of guilt to be decided during the trial itself.
Furthermore, the High Court criticized the trial court for its lack of detailed reasoning in discharging the UAPA charges, stating that it amounted to a “bare conclusion.” The High Court insisted that any discharge order must reflect careful judicial consideration of the available evidence, rather than a mere conclusion.
More Read
As a result, the High Court directed a new hearing at the trial court level, requiring a detailed order on the criminal charges against Lone based on the evidence. The court clarified that it had not determined Lone’s guilt or innocence, which would be evaluated by the trial court.
The prosecution was represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri and assistant counsel Maha Majeed, while Advocate Arshid Andrabi, assisted by Advocate Bariqah Shahrie, appeared for Lone.
For more details, refer to the complete court order.
