'The Ministry of U...APA': Prosecution of Arundhati Roy

Arundhati Roy’s second novel, ‘The Ministry of Utmost Happiness’ weaves together, among other major events of contemporary India, the Kashmir insurgency. Recently, Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena sanctioned the prosecution of Roy and former Central University of Kashmir professor Sheikh Showkat Hussain under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly making provocative speeches advocating for the separation of Kashmir from India. The case dates back to a 2010 conference titled “Azadi – The Only Way”.

The FIR was filed following a complaint by Sushil Pandit, an advertising agency owner, who accused the two speakers of promoting sentiments against India’s territorial integrity. The UAPA, a stringent anti-terror law, allows for the prosecution of individuals for advocating, abetting, or inciting unlawful activities, with penalties including imprisonment for up to seven years.

This sanction for prosecution under UAPA comes after an earlier sanction under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those related to promoting enmity and public mischief. The LG’s decision has been met with strong reactions from various political and civil society groups, who argue that the move is an attempt to suppress dissent and free speech. Critics also point out the significant delay in the prosecution, questioning the timing and motivation behind the renewed legal action.

Jargon

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): A stringent anti-terrorism law in India aimed at preventing unlawful activities and associations that threaten the integrity and sovereignty of the country. It allows for extended detention without charges and makes bail difficult to obtain.
Section 13 of UAPA: This section deals with punishment for advocating, abetting, or inciting any unlawful activity. It is punishable with imprisonment for up to seven years and may also include a fine.
Section 45(1) of UAPA: This section mandates that no court shall take cognizance of any offense under the UAPA without the previous sanction of the central or state government, depending on the case.
Section 196 of CrPC: A provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that requires prior sanction from the central or state government before prosecuting certain offenses, including those related to promoting enmity between different groups.
Section 153A of IPC: A section of the Indian Penal Code that deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

Viewpoints 💭

‘Left’ Viewpoint

Ideological Differences

‘Right’ Viewpoint

Critics view the prosecution of Arundhati Roy under UAPA as an attack on freedom of expression, highlighting the political motivations behind the decision.
The delay in prosecuting Roy for a speech made over a decade ago raises concerns about the misuse of anti-terror laws to suppress dissent.
Opposition parties, including Congress, CPI(M), and TMC, have condemned the move, labeling it fascist and a violation of democratic values.
Civil liberties groups like PUCL have called for the withdrawal of the prosecution and the repeal of UAPA, citing its unconstitutional implications.
The use of UAPA in this case is seen as an attempt to intimidate and silence dissenting voices, undermining India’s democratic foundations.

The left views the prosecution as an infringement on freedom of speech and a political tactic to target dissenting voices, reflecting concerns over the erosion of democratic norms and civil liberties.
The right supports the prosecution as a necessary measure to maintain national security and integrity, viewing it as a legitimate action against anti-national elements.
There is a fundamental disagreement on the use of UAPA, with the left arguing it is used to suppress dissent and the right seeing it as essential for combating terrorism and separatism.
The timing and motivation behind the prosecution are points of contention, with the left questioning the delay and political motivations, while the right views it as a delayed but necessary legal response.
The broader debate reflects contrasting views on national sovereignty, with the left advocating for a more inclusive discussion on Kashmir and the right prioritizing territorial integrity and national security.

The BJP and its supporters defend the prosecution of Roy, arguing it is necessary to safeguard national integrity and prevent separatist agendas.
Proponents of the prosecution claim that speeches advocating for Kashmir’s separation from India pose a threat to national security and public order.
The use of UAPA is justified by supporters as a tool to combat anti-national activities and uphold the sovereignty of India.
The decision to prosecute Roy under UAPA is seen as a strong stance against individuals who question India’s territorial integrity.
BJP spokespersons accuse opposition parties of sympathizing with separatists and terrorists, emphasizing the need for legal action against seditious speech.

Prominent Voices 📣

From the ‘Left’

From the ‘Right’

Arundhati Roy (Author and Activist): Views the prosecution as an attempt to suppress dissent and free speech and as a stance against Hindu fascism and economic totalitarianism. [1] [2]
Communist Party of India (Marxist): Denounces the prosecution as fascist, illogical, and suspiciously timed. [3] [4]
Mahua Moitra (TMC MP): Describes the BJP’s actions as fascism and contrary to what Indians have voted against. [5] [6]
Mary Lawlor (UN human rights special rapporteur): Criticizes Indian authorities for using the UAPA to criminalize human rights defenders. [7]
Mehbooba Mufti (Former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir): Views the sanction as shocking and a violation of fundamental rights, highlighting Roy’s opposition to fascism. [8] [4]

Ajay Alok (BJP spokesperson): Expresses gratitude for the prosecution and emphasizes the need to act against those questioning India’s territorial integrity. [9]
Shehzad Poonawalla (BJP spokesperson): Defends the prosecution, accusing Congress of supporting separatists and questioning their commitment to national integrity. [10] [6]
Tuhin Sinha (BJP national spokesperson): Accuses Roy of seeking to demoralize the Indian Army. [7]
V K Saxena (Lieutenant Governor of Delhi): Sanctioned the prosecution under UAPA, emphasizing the legal implications of speech against national integrity. [11] [12]