QUESTION 19
GS3
15 marks
Indian Government has recently strengthened the anti-terrorism laws by amending the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 and the NIA Act. Analyze the changes in the context of prevailing security environment while discussing the scope and reasons for opposing the UAPA by human rights organizations.
WRITE IN
11 min
250 words
What the examiner wants
Analyse the 2019 UAPA and NIA amendments and why human rights groups oppose UAPA.
Analyse + DiscussBreak it into parts, show how the parts connect, and judge which matter most. Explain the different sides of the issue, use evidence, and finish with a balanced view.
Demand-wise check
- 1UAPA 2019: individuals can be designated as terrorists; NIA DG can approve property seizure; NIA inspectors can investigate≈50 words
- 2NIA 2019: jurisdiction over crimes abroad against Indians; new offences (human trafficking, arms, cyber terrorism); special courts≈50 words
- 3Context: cross-border terror, lone actors≈50 words
- 4Opposition: vague definitions, low conviction rate, long pre-trial custody, stringent bail (Sec 43D(5)), no hearing before designation≈50 words
Open in about 30 words and close in about 30.
Answer plan
ChangesSecurity rationaleCriticismsBalanceConclusion
Where marks usually go
- Not separating UAPA and NIA changes
- No conviction data
Draw this
- Table: change → rationale → concern
Value addition
- DataConviction rate under UAPA has been low; NCRB data for 2016–20 show about 2–3% conviction among arrested.NCRB / MHA reply in Parliament
- CaseNIA v Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) made bail under UAPA very hard; Union v K.A. Najeeb (2021) allowed bail for long delay.Supreme Court
Mapped topper copies
Reviewed public-source references related to this PYQ. Same-syllabus references are labelled separately.
- Shakti Dubey · AIR 1 · Page 50 ↗Same syllabus reference
Links open original public sources. MainsBuddy does not host these answer sheets.
Next: plan for one minute, write it in 11 minutes, then get it checked.