Sri Lankan Refugee Under UAPA: The Human Cost of India’s Anti-Terror Law -

Introduction

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) stands as a cornerstone in India’s legislative framework aimed at countering terrorism and activities that threaten the nation’s sovereignty. Enacted in 1967, the UAPA has undergone several amendments to strengthen its provisions, notably in 2004, 2008, and 2019. While its primary objective is to prevent unlawful activities and associations in India, the Act has also been a subject of debate concerning its implications on individual rights and freedoms.

A recent case that brings the UAPA into focus involves a Sri Lankan Tamil national, Subaskaran, who sought refuge in India after serving a sentence under the Act. This case not only highlights the stringent application of the UAPA but also raises questions about India’s stance on refugees and the balance between national security and humanitarian considerations.

The Case of Subaskaran

In 2015, Subaskaran was arrested in India for allegedly being part of a conspiracy to revive the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a group designated as a terrorist organization by the Indian government. He was convicted in 2018 under several laws, including the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced to seven years in prison. Upon completing his sentence, the Madras High Court ordered his deportation to Sri Lanka. Subaskaran challenged this order, citing fears of persecution and potential harm upon his return. However, the Supreme Court of India dismissed his plea, stating that India is not a “dharamshala” (a charitable shelter) for refugees from around the world and emphasized the country’s existing challenges in supporting its vast population .

UAPA: A Brief Overview

The UAPA was enacted to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations, and for dealing with terrorist activities. The Act empowers the central government to designate individuals and organizations as terrorists, seize properties, and detain individuals without charge for extended periods. The 2019 amendment further expanded the government’s powers by allowing it to designate individuals as terrorists without a formal judicial process .

Implications for Refugees and Human Rights

India does not have a national refugee law and is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. Instead, it deals with refugees through ad hoc administrative decisions. This lack of a formal framework often leaves refugees vulnerable to legal uncertainties and potential rights violations .

In Subaskaran’s case, his conviction under the UAPA significantly impacted his plea for asylum. While national security concerns are paramount, the absence of a structured refugee policy means that individuals like Subaskaran may not receive adequate consideration of their humanitarian needs and fears of persecution.

Balancing Security and Humanitarian Concerns

The challenge lies in balancing the imperatives of national security with the principles of human rights and humanitarian protection. While the UAPA serves as a critical tool in combating terrorism, its application must be judicious to prevent potential misuse and ensure that it does not infringe upon the rights of individuals, especially those seeking refuge from persecution.

Conclusion

The case of Subaskaran underscores the complexities at the intersection of counterterrorism laws and refugee protection. It highlights the need for India to consider establishing a comprehensive refugee policy that addresses security concerns while upholding its commitment to human rights. Such a framework would provide clarity and consistency in handling similar cases in the future, ensuring that individuals are not left in legal limbo and that the nation’s security is not compromised.

Sources:

More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/