Bombay High Court upholds constitutional validity of UAPA, rejects sedition challenge 

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 17, 2025) dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and also of section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Neela Gokhale held that the UAPA, in its current form, is constitutionally sound. The Court rejected the 2021 petition filed by Anil Baburao Baile, 46, a Mumbai resident, who was issued a notice by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020.

Mr. Baile had challenged the validity of the UAPA and amended it up-to-date, and section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, and prayed for a declaration of these laws as ultra vires and unconstitutional; and to quash and set aside the NIA notice issued to him. He said that the meaning of “unlawful activists”, “terrorist”, and “sedition” needs to be examined. “Nowhere in Chapter IV of UAPA ‘Terrorist’ is defined; what is defined is Terrorist Act in section 15. The word ‘Unlawful Activities’ is defined in section 2(o) of the said act, and ‘Sedition’ is defined in section 124A of the IPC,” the petition said.

Mr. Baile further argued that the amendments made to UAPA—especially those incorporating the 2001 UN Security Council resolution on international terrorism—enabled the government to arbitrarily designate Indian citizens or organisations as terrorists without adequate safeguards or definitions.

“Nowhere does the Constitution authorise a blanket power to the executive in deciding, and Parliament cannot be granted blanket power to declare an organisation as unlawful,” the petition contended.

The Bench found no merit in the arguments and concluded that the provisions of the Act met constitutional muster and dismissed the petition. A detailed order is yet to be uploaded.